Social security and medicare taxes for small business owners

[esantoro]

I just got my yearly notice/balance/statement sheet, whatever you call it ,from the social security office.

When you work for an employer, you pay 6.2% of your salary to Social Security. Your employer matches that. You also pay 1.45% in Medicare taxes. Your employer matches that too.

NOWWWWWWWWWW....When you are in business for yourself, you must pay both the full 12.4% of SS taxes and the full 2.9% of medicare taxes. Combined you are paying 15.3 percent of your income for these taxes.

I believe that you must pay these percentages for income (once all your deductions have been subtracted) of $400 and above.

My question is this.

When you figure how much federal income tax you owe, do you first deduct from your taxable income what you pay for the above taxes (my understanding is that you deduct the above taxes from taxable income), or are you in effect taxed twice?

Thanks for any input.

Ed

[esantoro]

Here's what I have found out.

These two taxes together are known as self-employment taxes(SECA).

You can deduct only half of what you end up paying in SECA from your gross income for federal tax purposes.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...d=98846,00.html

Even on the small business level, you can begin to see how the tax structures are weighted in favor of corporations and individuals with incomes over $102,000 . And you can begin to see how much the wealthy have to lose with more progressive tax reforms. You can also begin to see how the current tax structure is set up to remove tax revenue from the system and place a proportionately greater tax responsibility on those with lower incomes, those, it is assumed, who would be the most inclined to benefit from services paid for with taxes. This might work out ok if those same tax revenues were not actually going to benefit those individuals who already benefit from the tax structure due to their higher incomes.

My understanding of this system is simplified in this way. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's say that there is a total of $100 out there in the economy. If everyone is taxed at a flat rate of 25 percent, tax revenues would be $25. Perhaps this number could go down to 17 or 18 percent.

We don't have such a system. Our system is something like this, with perhaps a bit of exaggeration for effect, but only a bit. In our system, 90 percent of the people make $10 of the available $100 in the economy. Let's say they are taxed at 25 percent. Their tax contribution is $2.50. The wealthy make the remaining $90 of the available $100. Their tax contribution is $13.50. Total tax revenues to run what needs to be run is $16. In my simplified example, we have a tax system that is funded only 64 percent of what it should be. This is a failing mark, and I bet that a more accurate accounting would reveal a funding of less than 50 percent.

If the wealthy are taking 90 percent of the earnings, those earnings are not available for others to make, and such a system will remain underfunded.

I'm either asininely wrong in my simplification, or the current tax system is asininely wrong.

The one thing that probably screws up my whole simplification is that the Fed prints more money, thus throwing it into the pot artificially, which screws up any kind of straightforward accounting and defers financial turmoil, which is what we have now.

Just to let you all know, I will be running for president in 2016.

ed

[esantoro]

Here's what I have found out.

These two taxes together are known as self-employment taxes(SECA).

You can deduct only half of what you end up paying in SECA from your gross income for federal tax purposes.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...d=98846,00.html

Even on the small business level, you can begin to see how the tax structures are weighted in favor of corporations and individuals with incomes over $102,000 . And you can begin to see how much the wealthy have to lose with more progressive tax reforms. You can also begin to see how the current tax structure is set up to remove tax revenue from the system and place a proportionately greater tax responsibility on those with lower incomes, those, it is assumed, who would be the most inclined to benefit from services paid for with taxes. This might work out ok if those same tax revenues were not actually going to benefit those individuals who already benefit from the tax structure due to their higher incomes.

My understanding of this system is simplified in this way. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's say that there is a total of $100 out there in the economy. If everyone is taxed at a flat rate of 25 percent, tax revenues would be $25. Perhaps this number could go down to 17 or 18 percent.

We don't have such a system. Our system is something like this, with perhaps a bit of exaggeration for effect, but only a bit. In our system, 90 percent of the people make $10 of the available $100 in the economy. Let's say they are taxed at 25 percent. Their tax contribution is $2.50. The wealthy make the remaining $90 of the available $100. Their tax contribution is $13.50. Total tax revenues to run what needs to be run is $16. In my simplified example, we have a tax system that is funded only 64 percent of what it should be. This is a failing mark, and I bet that a more accurate accounting would reveal a funding of less than 50 percent.

If the wealthy are taking 90 percent of the earnings, those earnings are not available for others to make, and such a system will remain underfunded.

I'm either asininely wrong in my simplification, or the current tax system is asininely wrong.

The one thing that probably screws up my whole simplification is that the Fed prints more money, thus throwing it into the pot artificially, which screws up any kind of straightforward accounting and defers financial turmoil, which is what we have now.

Just to let you all know, I will be running for president in 2016.

ed

Perhaps I should not run for president, as my simplified understanding on closer scrutiny may reveal an economic system of very primitive societies. Imagine if there is finite money available. There would be a more physical and more violent competition for that finite money.

In such a primitive system, those with more physical strength would be the wealthiest. And....

Wait for it.....................

Wait for it................

Wait for it.....................

THE PEOPLE WITH THE MOST PHYSICAL STRENGTH ARE THOSE WHO USE THEIR HANDS IN DAILY LABOR.

[esantoro]

As with my lamp fix, smelting lead, dremel resuscitation, and various other experiments, I can't seem to let this one go either.

It seems to me that civilization has been the progression of power changing hands from the physically, thus biologically, stronger to the physically/ biologically weaker.

Let's pick a CEO at random and a steelworker at random for an all-out brawl and place our bets. It seems that this is what the stock market does but with the advantaged reversed.

All living organisms have a finite lifespan. It seems to me that the pinnacle of human existence was reached when the physically, biologically powerful started losing out in the race, which was a sign of physiological decrepitude in the human race. Assuming early forms of humans existed 400,000 years ago, I say we have no more than 100,000 years left in us. I would further argue, even as a connoisseur of technology and not a Luddite , that the rise of technological technology has actually been a signal of the onslaught of this decrepitude -- like bacteria in a petri dish shitting all over itself and dying out amid the waste.

It seems that this thread has veered off-topic and should be placed in its respective category. Not true.

Death and taxes. Death and taxes.

Here's what I have found out.

These two taxes together are known as self-employment taxes(SECA).

You can deduct only half of what you end up paying in SECA from your gross income for federal tax purposes.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...d=98846,00.html

Even on the small business level, you can begin to see how the tax structures are weighted in favor of corporations and individuals with incomes over $102,000 . And you can begin to see how much the wealthy have to lose with more progressive tax reforms. You can also begin to see how the current tax structure is set up to remove tax revenue from the system and place a proportionately greater tax responsibility on those with lower incomes, those, it is assumed, who would be the most inclined to benefit from services paid for with taxes. This might work out ok if those same tax revenues were not actually going to benefit those individuals who already benefit from the tax structure due to their higher incomes.

My understanding of this system is simplified in this way. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's say that there is a total of $100 out there in the economy. If everyone is taxed at a flat rate of 25 percent, tax revenues would be $25. Perhaps this number could go down to 17 or 18 percent.

We don't have such a system. Our system is something like this, with perhaps a bit of exaggeration for effect, but only a bit. In our system, 90 percent of the people make $10 of the available $100 in the economy. Let's say they are taxed at 25 percent. Their tax contribution is $2.50. The wealthy make the remaining $90 of the available $100. Their tax contribution is $13.50. Total tax revenues to run what needs to be run is $16. In my simplified example, we have a tax system that is funded only 64 percent of what it should be. This is a failing mark, and I bet that a more accurate accounting would reveal a funding of less than 50 percent.

If the wealthy are taking 90 percent of the earnings, those earnings are not available for others to make, and such a system will remain underfunded.

I'm either asininely wrong in my simplification, or the current tax system is asininely wrong.

The one thing that probably screws up my whole simplification is that the Fed prints more money, thus throwing it into the pot artificially, which screws up any kind of straightforward accounting and defers financial turmoil, which is what we have now.

Just to let you all know, I will be running for president in 2016.

ed

Edited May 27, 2009 by esantoro

[rdb]

I don't make enough to pay myself anything, nevermind the payroll taxes, but you sure do seem to be enjoying this one sided conversation.ROFL.

[esantoro]

I don't make enough to pay myself anything, nevermind the payroll taxes, but you sure do seem to be enjoying this one sided conversation.ROFL.

Many corporations also function in ways that on the surface make it appear that they don't make any money. That could be an advantage for a couple of years. In the world of taxation, I am finding out, it appears that losses are not always losses,and gains not always gains. That's way a corporation makes a profit by paying teams of accountants millions of dollars. That's why many CEO's get paid primarily in bonuses.

The one-sided conversation? I had to throw the ideas against the wall to see how they run down.

Blissful Insanity.

Ed

[electrathon]

My understanding of this system is simplified in this way. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll jump in so you are not just talking to yourself. This is a few years old but the numbers are still very similar:

Understanding the Tax System This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing;

The fifth would pay $1:

the sixth would pay $3;

the seventh $7;

the eighth $12;

The ninth $18. >

The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. "So dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fairshare?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing,

the sixth pitched in $2,

the seventh paid $5,

the eighth paid $9,

the ninth paid $12,

leaving the tenth Man with a of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They're $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Not the answer to your social security tax question, but addresses your tax percentage part.

[rdb]

shhhhh..don't reveal the secrets!

Look, self employment is a tough row. Small business to the government means in the low millions, not thousands. Anything less is just considered peons scratching out an existence. BUT we are the ones that actually pay our taxes. We don't have a bureau full of tax attorneys, and have to pay just what the numbers say.

The good part of starting a business, is the few years you have to make a profit. It's those years you sink everything back into the business. Paying yourself is nice, but building the business by buying equipment, and materials will help you to keep that business going for a longer time.

Paying yourself is of course, exactly why we do this, and paying into social security helps you later on in life. I've only a few years left before I collect, and I wished I had paid more into it. The nickels start counting then.

All the flat taxers, and such are really just deluding themselves. You are right though, the top one percent own 90% of everything. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. That's what the current administration is trying to deal with. How do we improve the situation so that all boats rise?

First, REGULATE. Offshore avoidance of their fair share of taxes has been a big loss to us citizens. The Bernie Maddoxes, the AIG hornswaggles, etc. have all been rooted in deregulation. Lay down some frikkin rules for crying out loud! The free enterprise system works in theory, but in reality, people can be dishonest, and greedy. Free Enterprise needs rules.

Secondly, no matter what side of the fence you sit, everything is political. We can't sit and gripe, and expect anything to change, without getting off our duffs and changing it. Join the local Party, and help get people elected that you believe in. We are America, America is not some organization run by "Them". It's the little old lady in the back licking stamps. And she's pissed!...lol

[electrathon]

Back to the origional: I read too that you can deduct half of the self employment tax from your gross earnings.

Self-employment tax deduction. You can deduct half of your SE tax in figuring your adjusted gross income. This deduction only affects your income tax. It does not affect either your net earnings from self-employment or your SE tax.

This is similar to if you were working for an employer. Your employer is also paying the 6.2 percent match that you are paying. This is part of your salery. You are not deducting that part, so it is a similar situation. Just that you are seeing both sides of the unfair way business are treated in our tax system.

In some of your posting you seem to be mixing the understanding of social security taxes (government retirement) and federal or state taxes (funding the bowels of government). They are differant.

[rdb]

When I was a builder, it was nothing for me to have to pay out FICA/unemployment/etc, in the area of 20,000 a whack, and I was a lttle guy! If you didn't put it aside, you were in trouble when it came due. So consider yourself fortunate, you are only dealing with the one employee. The paperwork alone becomes a two person job!

I read the other day, that in reality, whether you were in the 15% bracket, or the 35%, when all is said and done, the percentage of our taxes, including all the extra fees, sales taxes, etc., approaches the 48% range. This is very close to the 54% or so foreign countries have. So although there is a lot of people who say things like, "Sure they have medical insurance, but look what they have to pay in taxes."

In reality, it's what we get back from paying those taxes that should concern us. We pay out almost as much as they do, but get less back. Although paying out of pocket for taxes, and SS hurts, what really costs business, or the self employed is the medical insurance. $600-$1000 a month for medical insurance should be the thing that really gets everyone's dander up!

With Single Payer Insurance, business, small or otherwise, would see a huge boost to their bottom line. Seems like common sense to me. 15% tax would then seem like a bargain....

[esantoro]

I'll jump in so you are not just talking to yourself. This is a few years old but the numbers are still very similar:

Understanding the Tax System This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this.

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing;

The fifth would pay $1:

the sixth would pay $3;

the seventh $7;

the eighth $12;

The ninth $18. >

The tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. "So dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fairshare?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being *paid* to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing,

the sixth pitched in $2,

the seventh paid $5,

the eighth paid $9,

the ninth paid $12,

leaving the tenth Man with a of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They're $52 short! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Not the answer to your social security tax question, but addresses your tax percentage part.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! This challenges my perspective from the other direction. Mine was left of center, maybe further left. Yours right of center, maybe further right.

I'm left wondering where the tenth man ends up eating, and what the restaurant owner has to do to make up for the missing $52, because surely the others will not be able to continue to eat there.

Let me propose that Robert Frank has the answer to this dilemma in _Richistan_.

The tenth man withdraws some of his untaxed income from an offshore account and pays his annual membership to an exclusive club or gated community and whiles away the rest of his days in a top-tiered special economy exclusively for the wealthy. This economy and its functioning is all but separated from the economy in which the nine other men reside.

What if the tenth man decides he no longer likes the American tax structure? Does he really benefit by moving his business to another country, where there is much less income disparity between the top and the bottom? I say let the tenth man out of the restaurant and out of the country. Call his bluff. He'll fold. Something else will come in and assume his place.

This tenth man has been leaving the restaurant since 1980, and is currently all but gone. The nine remaining men and the restaurant owner are deciding how to go forward. This is the situation in which we find ourselves currently. The only problem is that this tenth man is still being subsidized by the $28-economy of the other nine men,yet he no longer eats at the same table. This tenth man did not build his wealth all by himself. He used benefits created by the system to gain leverage, the understanding being that doing so would benefit all at the table. The gains are privatized in the hands of the tenth man but the risks are socialized among the remaining nine.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax...icle1996735.ece

One more thing, since the Immigration Act of 1965, the faces at the table are not the same as they were throughout most of the twentieth century. Those darker hued faces at the table were very helpful in doing the poorly remunerated grunt work of the service and financial sectors where our man No. 10 made his wealth. The move away from a predominantly Caucasian table has been further impetus for our tenth man to leave (The film -Mission to Mars_ is a curious metaphor for this flight), but this is something number ten is unable to admit to himself in the light of day but recognizes in the dark of night when he thinks no one is looking (cf. Trent Lott). And it's easy to dismiss, because it is done through passive, indirect action. The orchestration is rather beautiful in its elegance and rational appearance.

Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ is about this very dilemma, but it was presumed that her capitalists created REAL value. In her system Microsoft would never have gotten off the ground, as it would have been easily beaten out by a better product from day one. Nike, by now would be gone, too. Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Gone. Gonegonegonegonegonegonegone.................... (Swaine Adeney Brigg, Ghurka, and, of course, Walden Bags would still be around.)

Something of greater value would have taken their places. And things of greater value would never have perished. Cars would be getting 100 miles on a fart. Or something like that.

Ed

[esantoro]

When I was a builder, it was nothing for me to have to pay out FICA/unemployment/etc, in the area of 20,000 a whack, and I was a lttle guy! If you didn't put it aside, you were in trouble when it came due. So consider yourself fortunate, you are only dealing with the one employee. The paperwork alone becomes a two person job!

I read the other day, that in reality, whether you were in the 15% bracket, or the 35%, when all is said and done, the percentage of our taxes, including all the extra fees, sales taxes, etc., approaches the 48% range. This is very close to the 54% or so foreign countries have. So although there is a lot of people who say things like, "Sure they have medical insurance, but look what they have to pay in taxes."

In reality, it's what we get back from paying those taxes that should concern us. We pay out almost as much as they do, but get less back. Although paying out of pocket for taxes, and SS hurts, what really costs business, or the self employed is the medical insurance. $600-$1000 a month for medical insurance should be the thing that really gets everyone's dander up!

With Single Payer Insurance, business, small or otherwise, would see a huge boost to their bottom line. Seems like common sense to me. 15% tax would then seem like a bargain....

I agree that we end up paying about just as much as Europeans do, but get about half as much or less in return. Propaganda is what makes many Americans think it is otherwise.

If we are getting so little in return, where is it going? To cross reference posts, No. 10 at the table has his hands on some of it. Why does he need this boost from the rest of us, if he's not willing to pay his share.

Again, I refer you to Warren Buffet:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax...icle1996735.ece

ed

[esantoro]

Something else is peculiar about No. 10 at the table, if I haven't already expressed it. I would argue that in the last thirty years, he has not had to work as hard for his wealth, but that much of that wealth was generated through tax structures. The government gave him a hand up, up, up, up. What is this, a socialist country?

Why not return to the tax structures of 1970? I do think the Immigration Act of 1965 plays a lot into this. A lot. Yet journalists and politicians are not pushing that button.

ed

Edited May 28, 2009 by esantoro

[esantoro]

here are some different numbers I found:

Top 1%, $364,000, pay 40% of income taxes.

Top 5%, $145,000 pay 60% of ".

Top 10%, $103,000 pay 70% of ".

Top 25%, $62,000 pay 86% of ".

Top 50%, $30,000 pay 97% of ".

These numbers seem to fit my understanding of things, but I'm unclear on how one can come up with 353 percent for 100 percent of income.

Supposedly this info comes from the IRS in 2005.

Ed

[electrathon]

here are some different numbers I found:

Top 1%, $364,000, pay 40% of income taxes.

Top 5%, $145,000 pay 60% of ".

Top 10%, $103,000 pay 70% of ".

Top 25%, $62,000 pay 86% of ".

Top 50%, $30,000 pay 97% of ".

These numbers seem to fit my understanding of things, but I'm unclear on how one can come up with 353 percent for 100 percent of income.

Supposedly this info comes from the IRS in 2005.

Ed

The numbers overlap. Without looking up any numbers, I think yours look pretty close.

the 1% at the top pay 40% of all taxes

the 5% at the top pay 60% of all taxes

the 10% at the top pay 70% of all taxes

the 5% includes the 1%, and so on.

In your example, the bottom 50% of all people pay only 3% of all collected taxes.

Remember, we have social welfare unheard of in other countries. In openly socialistic countries, they do not have the "free" things available to them that our "poor" or non-working have here. The tax system we now have supports those people. These are the 4 in the story that pay nothing for dinner, they are supported by the others (mainly the one) who pay more. If other countries gave away what we do, their tax structure would be far higher than it is.

And yes, the top percent are very afraid of what is taking place in this country. Yes, they have stopped coming to dinner. Yes, it is a crippling blow to the country. Yes, the rest of us are having a very tough time paying for dinner without them.

Just to clarify too, I am not wealthy. Very far from it. I would fall low into the lower middle class. I just understand how socialism has damaged so many countries around the world, and how it is destroying us here.

[esantoro]

I lived in Europe for six years and never worried about getting sick. I always felt I had enough. My salary was localized, not American.

To my understanding and from my research, when you factor in health care, vacation days, education, leisure time, overall quality of life, life seems better in Germany, Denmark, and quite a few other countries. I suppose if one has a certain type of discipline, he or she could make a similar life here in the U.S., though people tend to conform to the climbing and consuming that goes on around them, which could lead many Americans to reach beyond their means.

The numbers overlap. Without looking up any numbers, I think yours look pretty close.

the 1% at the top pay 40% of all taxes

the 5% at the top pay 60% of all taxes

the 10% at the top pay 70% of all taxes

the 5% includes the 1%, and so on.

In your example, the bottom 50% of all people pay only 3% of all collected taxes.

Remember, we have social welfare unheard of in other countries. In openly socialistic countries, they do not have the "free" things available to them that our "poor" or non-working have here. The tax system we now have supports those people. These are the 4 in the story that pay nothing for dinner, they are supported by the others (mainly the one) who pay more. If other countries gave away what we do, their tax structure would be far higher than it is.

And yes, the top percent are very afraid of what is taking place in this country. Yes, they have stopped coming to dinner. Yes, it is a crippling blow to the country. Yes, the rest of us are having a very tough time paying for dinner without them.

Just to clarify too, I am not wealthy. Very far from it. I would fall low into the lower middle class. I just understand how socialism has damaged so many countries around the world, and how it is destroying us here.

[electrathon]

If we are getting so little in return, where is it going? To cross reference posts, No. 10 at the table has his hands on some of it. Why does he need this boost from the rest of us, if he's not willing to pay his share.

So easy. It is going to pay the way of the 4 men who do not pay for dinner. The guy who "is not willing to pay his share" is already supporting almost every man at the table.

Something else is peculiar about No. 10 at the table, if I haven't already expressed it. I would argue that in the last thirty years, he has not had to work as hard for his wealth, but that much of that wealth was generated through tax structures. The government gave him a hand up, up, up, up. What is this, a socialist country?

You once again are missing the 4 who pay nothing. Yes, we are already so close to socialism is is frightining. The 4 men at the bottom have beem living off the milk of the public nipple so long they have no ability to go and harvest thier own meat. Socialism weakens peoopel that way. It weakens the whole economy. Yes, there are those that have physical reasons to be nipple fed, but the majority just find it easier. As another clarification, I personally have lost magor usage in one of my legs from an accident when I was 15. If I pushed for it I could be collectig Social Security Disability, I do not.

Imagine how great our economy would be if most of us were producers in one form or another. If those 4 men paid into the system, we could move so far so forward so fast.

[electrathon]

I suppose if one has a certain type of discipline, he or she could make a similar life here in the U.S., though people tend to conform to the climbing and consuming that goes on around them, which could lead many Americans to reach beyond their means.

I think that is a major part of the answer, almost prophetic. The American people now feel entitled to things they did not earn and can not afford. This debt brings everyone down. If people would live within their means, we would all have more.

When you were in Europe, did you see people living beyone their means like people do here? Was it even possible to live outside your means like it is here?

[esantoro]

So easy. It is going to pay the way of the 4 men who do not pay for dinner. The guy who "is not willing to pay his share" is already supporting almost every man at the table.

You once again are missing the 4 who pay nothing. Yes, we are already so close to socialism is is frightining. The 4 men at the bottom have beem living off the milk of the public nipple so long they have no ability to go and harvest thier own meat. Socialism weakens peoopel that way. It weakens the whole economy. Yes, there are those that have physical reasons to be nipple fed, but the majority just find it easier. As another clarification, I personally have lost magor usage in one of my legs from an accident when I was 15. If I pushed for it I could be collectig Social Security Disability, I do not.

Imagine how great our economy would be if most of us were producers in one form or another. If those 4 men paid into the system, we could move so far so forward so fast.

I think there is an economic theory somewhere that argues that in order for No. 10 to be able and willing to pay a significant portion of the tab, Nos. 1 through 4 have to be manufactured to be unable to pay their share. This is what keeps Nos. 5 through 9 showing up eagerly to work Mondays through Fridays. They don't want to be like 1-4. They are happy in the feeling that their lots are better, and if they work hard enough maybe some day No. 10 will ask them over for Fourth of July barbecue, where 1-4 serve the guests and pick up the trash as their second or third job away from McDonalds and Wal-Mart, in order to make a bit of money to be trained as IT technicians, only to see that when they finally graduate, No. 10 has shipped the IT jobs to India, as the cost savings allows (or once allowed) him more easily to stomach the 59 percent at the restaurant table. The alternative is more educated people and a more level playing field of competition, which would make No. 10 work much harder to maintain his position. Who would then pick up No. 10's trash? I think No. 10 was happy paying the $59; the once Caucasian table made it even more palatable. Just how does No. 10 feel about the shift of ethnic demographics in this country? Can we say that this shift is not playing into the economic mechanisms of the last 20 years? For the record, my ancestry is from Italy, Sicily, to be exact.

I understand the position you're supporting. I think I see it differently. I know I'm playing with the analogies, but in playing with them I am able to further express just how I see the economic mechanisms working. And I could be dead wrong.

Ed

[electrathon]

Remember, in our system, the bottom 3-4 do not pick up the trash of the wealthy. They live off the government nipple. It is a step or two up that are the honest, hard (often increadibly hard) working people that do that. If they do well, and work correctly, they get to move up. If not, they never make it any higher. The bottom 3 sucking off the nipple are the ones that complain they are not getting more from the gready rich. They are held back by drugs, alchol, attitude, and the inability to wean themselves and go and fend for themselves.

I also feel it increadibly sad that the tax structure and other issues has made it necessary for the top to leave the table and eat elsewhere. Yes, they left the table. It was necessary for them to do in order to be about to support the rest of us. So sad.

I personally do not care the color of ones skin. I am a mutt personally (but would definatly be considered white). I do not know where I come from, except maybe Oklahoma. If one wants to work, they should be paid. If one wants to sit at home and reherse to be on Jerry Springsr, he deserves to be hungry. Yes, differant jobs pay differant amounts.

Ed, you are a good example of this. You have a very nice product that you market to the top couple percent of income earners. Very few average people (likely no below average people) could ever afford to purchase from you. The government could step in and force you to lower your price so that the masses could afford your work. That would make it "fair" for everyone looking to buy. I am betting that the quality of your work would suffer with that sort of government assistance. Think of all the people it would help. I am guessing you would either stop producing or start selling elsewhere. You would be the man at the table that has to leave. I hope and pray that this does not happen. I personally feel that you should be able to price your work as you see fit and let the market decide if it is over or underpriced.

I do agree that we see this diferantly. That is OK, maybe even good. It does surprise me that someone who relies on the wealthy to make a living would want them to be less wealthy, as your income will drop in relationship with their wealth. Possibly if that happens you will be able to find a new market, selling to the masses instead. I think that choice should be up to you though and not up to the government.

[esantoro]

I think that is a major part of the answer, almost prophetic. The American people now feel entitled to things they did not earn and can not afford. This debt brings everyone down. If people would live within their means, we would all have more.

When you were in Europe, did you see people living beyone their means like people do here? Was it even possible to live outside your means like it is here?

I was in Europe from 1998 to 2004. I didn't really see people living beyond their means, though I sensed this was changing, as American-type consumerism was getting more and more of a stronghold. Time, for the most part, was spent with other people, not buying things or thinking about what to buy. Most people were of similar economic means. There was not a great disparity between the financial elites of the city and the rest. I spent my time mixing with both.

There was, though, a sense that the financially better off were very secure in their positions and that social class was understood, accepted, rationalized, was just there. nothing to be done about it. No place is perfect, but there was much less restlessness there than here.

My goal is to maintain a European consciousness and lifestyle with American means. Working with leather is a good focal point for that kind of life. It makes one focus on experience rather than consuming beyond the ordinary. There's less need to consume, because the leather has you obsessed. When you're out doing other things, it is your current project in leather that is on your mind. And when you're working the leather, you are the country club, you are Gucci, you are Swaine Adeney Brigg, you are Madison Avenue, you are the Brooklyn Bridge. Put simply, you are trucking with the gods.

One of the things that made it possible and rather easy not to live beyond one's means is that one is not bombarded by images of a future, better life, an always receding promise. That bombardment is much easier in LA or NYC, but not in the rural countryside where you still see hay carts drawn by cart horses and senior citizens riding bicycles.

I think there is a happy medium between socialism and capitalism. Capitalism taken too far encourages a self-imposed slave system with not a single master, yet with discipline one could carve out a secure place. Universal health care would nearly make this incredibly easy, and on some level conservatives know this. They know that with universal healthcare, Nos. 1-4 could be very happy becoming philosophers and not Wal-Mart greeters. Social climbers would have to ask themselves what is all the climbing really for.

The way I see it is that No. 10 gets his wealth only if people are reaching beyond their means. He needs to make sure they keep reaching. That's why he needs 1-4 getting handouts at the table. It keeps 5-9 reaching. It is these mechanisms I did not see in Europe, and it felt easier to breathe there (I would think even for a No.10) though I sense this is changing. But it can also swing back the other way, which I think is more possible there than here. But I suppose the same could be done here. It just takes a discipline that seems foreign. _The Truman Show_ is a little talked about film that digs to the heart of this matter, that illustrates the propaganda mechanisms that keep people tied to the treadmill. The film is superb if you cut out the final two minutes -- leave Truman at the wall. Just leave him there. Audiences would have been disturbed even more than they were with the close of _The Sopranos_.

Maybe our European members could weigh in on this to see if I'm missing something.

Ed

[electrathon]

Universal health care would nearly make this incredibly easy, and on some level conservatives know this. They know that with universal healthcare, Nos. 1-4 could be very happy becoming philosophers and not Wal-Mart greeters.

Exactly. It is far easier to live off the ever flowing nipple than to work for what you get. The nipple provides just enough to keep you from supporting yourself.

Historicly, America started out as socialist. People were starving to death. They switched to a capitalist system and very soon, there was plenty. This was a long time ago.

[esantoro]

Exactly. It is far easier to live off the ever flowing nipple than to work for what you get. The nipple provides just enough to keep you from supporting yourself.

Historicly, America started out as socialist. People were starving to death. They switched to a capitalist system and very soon, there was plenty. This was a long time ago.

But what's wrong with a few more philosophers and artists and a few fewer Wall-Mart greeters and fast-food register jockeys? And workers who put in a 40-hour week, wherever they work, should be paid a livable wage that includes or allows the purchase of healthcare.

[bustedlifter]

With Single Payer Insurance, business, small or otherwise, would see a huge boost to their bottom line. Seems like common sense to me. 15% tax would then seem like a bargain....

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free. Check out how a lot of countries with "free" health care have to ration out meds or the waiting list for simple tests or procedures if they get done at all. It's IMPOSSIBLE to budget how much money would be needed for health care in a fiscal year because there are so many variables. Just think about how many people would run to the doctor, for any little reason, because it's "free". If the government is the sole health care provider then they OWN you. I think it's a control thing rather than the government having your best interest in mind. As usual, anytime the government gets involved in something they have no business being in,they bugger it up.

[bustedlifter]

But what's wrong with a few more philosophers and artists and a few fewer Wall-Mart greeters and fast-food register jockeys? And workers who put in a 40-hour week, wherever they work, should be paid a livable wage that includes or allows the purchase of healthcare.

Who should decide what a livable wage is? The government already tells business the minimum it can pay. If $7.75 an hour is good, why not raise it to $15.00 an hour. Why stop there? Raise it to $50.00 an hour and everybody would make a decent living wage. Maybe throw in mandatory 8 weeks paid vacation a year,too.