It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

State Employees Should Not Pay Taxes

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The notion that State employees should “pay taxes” is ridiculous on its face. Since State employees are entirely funded from the tax rolls, making them pay taxes is nothing more than an accounting gimmick. Let us look at a few of the problems for society that arise from making State employees pay into the tax system:

1. The accounting gimmick of State employees paying taxes costs the real tax payers a tremendous amount of overhead in terms of accounting costs.

2. It necessitates increased tax payer costs in terms tax enforcement.

3. It provides an unwarranted market credibility to bureaucrats who provide no net value to society.

Given that there is no logical reason why a State employee, who is paid out of the tax rolls, should pay taxes himself. And given the fact that engaging in this accounting gimmick actually causes the State to waste more resources than is necessary in accounting costs; one has to wonder why the State engages in this kind of waste.

Of course, the answer is obvious.

Making State employees “pay taxes” helps the State hide the fact that State employees are a net drain on the productive sector of the economy. It also makes State employees feel like their jobs are legitimate, when in fact they are not.

When I say “State employees should not pay taxes,” I want to be clear that I mean ALL taxes and not just income taxes. Income taxes are obviously the most ridiculous form of taxes that State employees pay, but since their positions are fully funded by the private sector, it makes no sense for them to pay any taxes at all.

Let us take an example.

If a bureaucrat earns 100,000 a year in compensation, and that bureaucrat pays 30% of that income back to the State in taxation, the State could simply pay that bureaucrat 70,000 in compensation and not charge him any taxes; thereby not changing his net take-home pay one red cent. Along with this, the State would then adjust its taxation of the private sector accordingly to provide for the 70,000 it spends on the bureaucrat in order to balance the State’s budget (LOL – as if State budgets ever balance, but lets just pretend they do for now anyways.)

This would make it clear to everyone in society that the bureaucrat is entirely funded through the “charity” of the State and his very existence is a net drag on the economy, rather than being an actual member of society that meaningfully contributes to it.

If a State employee wants to purchase something tax free at a point of sale under this system, he would first have to provide his State employee ID to get around the sales tax, which would have the ancillary benefit of causing public shame for the employee making such a tax free purchase. (I personally feel all government employees should feel humble and shameful of their position in life.)

This elimination of State employee taxes would also save a large amount of accounting overhead for the State, which by default, means it would save a large amount of money for the real tax payers in society as well.

I think it is also reasonable to extend this logic to welfare cases. And by welfare cases, I mean large corporations and banking institutions.

For example, let us say that the State wants to purchase 1,000,000 Windows Operating System licenses from the Microsoft Corporation. Rather than actually paying Microsoft the full cost of these licenses and then taking back what they paid Microsoft in taxes, the State should FIRST cut the total amount that Microsoft pays in taxes by an amount proportional to what the licenses cost, and then if still more money is necessary to cover the costs of the purchase, it should pay Microsoft directly with a welfare check and publicly post the cost of that welfare check to a clearing house website that is viewable by the real tax paying public.

This would make it obvious to all tax payers which corporations are a net drag on society through their involvement with the State and which corporations are producers who make a positive net contribution to the tax system. Under such a system, if a corporation is receiving a welfare check, then by default they must not have paid any taxes on top of getting such a check.

If one spends any time thinking about this, it should become obvious that the mega-corporations in our society today are all heavily involved in government contract work. In 2010 there were 21,292,000 government employees on the books. If we assume just one out of ten employees have a workstation that requires a Microsoft license at $162.oo per annual volume license seat, that works out to $345 million in licensing costs just for the workstations with Windows and Office. Of course, the totals Microsoft collects from government contracts is far greater than that in real life.

The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the State is a criminal organization, and because it is a criminal organization, it will act like a criminal organization in attempting to hide its theft from public scrutiny.

In whatever tax system the public choses to construct, be it our current system or a flat tax system, it would be wise for the public to construct the tax system in such a way as to make it the most obvious to everyone involved that the State produces nothing and provides nothing, it can only take from those who produce and give to those who do not.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Makes sense...so naturally, state employees should earn less...around the amount of their 'net' income instead of keeping the full gross income by not paying taxes...hmm



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Mnemeth, you're aware about 9/10 of the people on this site will simply gloss over what you wrote (if that, they might just read the title), dare not think the reasons why you point out what you are pointing out, and miss the complete point of this thread to behind with, right?
edit on 23-2-2011 by SpectreDC because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


I do my best hahaha.

I think I've made a few converts along the way.

All it takes is a few motivated individuals to change the world.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1


Making State employees “pay taxes” helps the State hide the fact that State employees are a net drain on the productive sector of the economy. It also makes State employees feel like their jobs are legitimate, when in fact they are not.



So policemen, fire-fighters, teachers, trash-collectors, to name but a few State employees all deserve to be made to feel that their jobs are not legitimate?

As opposed to all those tens of thousands who push money around on Wall Street, and make profits by adding or subtracting pixels on a screen?... you know, the truly productive sector of society


:sigh:



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Dagar
 


No, they are not.

Any job that is funded through violent theft can not be legitimate.

If people want police and fire protection, then common sense tells us they will pay for such services willingly.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
So your Senator should pay no taxes, despite earning more a year than you will in a few lifetimes?

I think public employees shoukd pay twice as much tax as the rest of us. After all, we're paying their wages ....



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Absolutely brilliant. Accomplishes a number of things, primarily awareness.

I would add something that was perhaps inferred and that is that any and all depreciation associated with government entities should be eliminated. In other words, say IBM signs a hosting agreement for the state and in order to provide that service need to add onto or build another data center and implement 1000 servers and associated network infrastructure, additionally there would be physical infrastructure associated with equipping support staff.

Under current accounting practices via GAPP, IBM could write down the cost of that infrastructure over 5 or 7 years, making the government contract a more attractive proposition than it otherwise would. Further, IBM would likely comingle other, private clients within the same facility, making the taxpayers essentially subsidize IBM's ability to service private firms.

Eliminate the accounting treatment for this infrastructure and force IBM to ring fence the government infrastructure. That not only would reduce the cost of those services to the state because IBM would not have an incentive to over procure infrastructure and make it unprofitable or significantly less profitable to provide services to the state, ultimately that would lead to more privatization.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I agree! What's the point? All state and federal employees should only pay into medicaid, soc sec, oh yeah and they're health insurance and they're...what's that thing there's no such thing as anymore in the private sector...a fancy word for retirement...dang what's that word? Pension! That's it, lmao....



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
So your Senator should pay no taxes, despite earning more a year than you will in a few lifetimes?

I think public employees shoukd pay twice as much tax as the rest of us. After all, we're paying their wages ....


No, because the tax would be instantly deducted from their wages - they would earn less in the first place. There's no point in A (the government/state institution) giving B (the state employee) money, only for B to give a portion back to A, at a cost to A, which is infact a cost to the general public. The major problem is, then these state employees, particularly the ones who aren't earning a great deal, would see how much they actually got taxed, and, at least on the surface, it would sound like a terrible deal, even though it never actually changed. It's just window dressing, eh. A simple idea, yet a very good one.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
This is a stupid concept.

Either everyone should pay taxes or no one should. You can't pick and choose who pays taxes based on who their employer is.

As an employer the "State" already does not have to pay taxes on profits like a corporation does and, yes, the state does take profits. In Texas, our state ran an $8 billion surplus. The state didn't pay federal taxes for that profit and they didn't return the money to the taxpayer. Instead they used the money to create more government that they would eventually have to tax us more to support.

Also, there should be no unionization of state employess since, working for the state, they already receive benifits in excess of most privately employed citizens.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   


The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the State is a criminal organization, and because it is a criminal organization, it will act like a criminal organization in attempting to hide its theft from public scrutiny.


Truth.

It bites like a rattlesnake.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AP-Chris
 


The notion is that there would be pressure placed on the state, since non-state workers would increasingly outraged by the notion that underperforming folks were not paying taxes. It would eliminate this "we pay taxes like everyone else" nonsense spouted by state employees.

As far as a state making profits, no they don't, anymore than a loan shark does. A state should have a tax policy which enables it to cover its outstanding obligations. Should a state have a surplus, it merely means that they have over taxed the public. That money should be given back to the tax payers proportunately based on how much tax that individual paid. There is no legitimate reason for a state to carry a surplus. I'd grant perhaps a small isolated pool of money to cover natural disasters, but that money would only be able to be released by a super majority of both components of the state government and signed by the government. It would also be a calculated amount based on real actuarial data that would be based on real disaster data.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   
I do so concur! It is completely asinine for government employee's to pay taxes for all of the reasons you have presented. Government employees by paying taxes also pay for their own wages. Ridiculous! But..the REASON is because of Bureaucrats perpetuating and initiating an artificial, contrived structure to provide a rationalization for their useless existence. "All over the world bureaucrats are plotting death and a few even know about it" Thomas Pynchon



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by AP-Chris
 


The notion is that there would be pressure placed on the state, since non-state workers would increasingly outraged by the notion that underperforming folks were not paying taxes. It would eliminate this "we pay taxes like everyone else" nonsense spouted by state employees.


The problem is the difference between theory and reality. I don't even agree with the theory let alone the reality of it. The reality would be state employees have an even larger advantage over those working in the private sector because it would also eliminate the cost of compliance (both in dollars and time) for state employees.

Not to mention you are creating another class of citizens who do not have to pay taxes. The OP said ALL taxes, not just income tax. You cannot exclude them from property taxes also, especially in Texas where the average property tax rate is 2.5%.



As far as a state making profits, no they don't, anymore than a loan shark does. A state should have a tax policy which enables it to cover its outstanding obligations.


What should be and what reality is are two different things. The reality in Texas is that the state did over tax it's citizens far in excess of what was needed to meet it's obligations ($8 billionv worth)



Should a state have a surplus, it merely means that they have over taxed the public. That money should be given back to the tax payers proportunately based on how much tax that individual paid. There is no legitimate reason for a state to carry a surplus. I'd grant perhaps a small isolated pool of money to cover natural disasters, but that money would only be able to be released by a super majority of both components of the state government and signed by the government. It would also be a calculated amount based on real actuarial data that would be based on real disaster data.


Again, theory and reality.
Texas did not give the money back to taxpayers. That is the reality.

What they do, is use the excess collected to create more government, then later tell us they need to raise taxes or our precious government service will be cut. Only fools vote to increase their own taxes, but it happens all the time because we need to pay our heroic teachers to teach our precious kiddies....and build huge football stadiums so they can play games.

Government is a wasteful beast that must spend everything it has to justify next years budget increase. The total cost of government should be constitutionally capped 15% of GDP. That is the only way to solve the problem.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Present governments exist upon a foundation of secrets. They are perpetuated by the control of all types of knowledge. So if we eliminate secrets and this niggardesque hoarding of all present knowledge, we can make it avalable to all and destroy the current,sociopathic, inhuman and malevolent pyramidal paradigm. But to truely happen, to be truely effective...we must ALL be telepathic. Telepathy would slay all secrets. All would know all. All would truely be equitable. All would be connected...ONE. As it really is...all ONE. Each could lead. Each could follow. The pinnacle of democracy would be achieved. We would all vote on every issue at the speed of thought. One consciousness. We are one with each other and one with the all. Namaste



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by AP-Chris
 


Your assumptions would be correct if State employees were actually in a competitive market.

However, they are not.

If a private corporation was allowed to not pay taxes, they would have a tremendous market advantage. But that is TOTALLY different than a government organization. Since the government organization gets its revenues through theft, it does not face market constraints like private corporation, it is simply constrained by whatever arbitrary amount bureaucrats have decided its budget should be.

Further, since government agencies don't actually produce anything that has market value, they can't monopolize any markets because they already are monopolies! For example, fire departments don't face competition from private fire departments, therefore how much they pay their employees is totally arbitrary. It is not set by a market for firefighters.

The government has simply decided what their wage should be based on an arbitrary calculation of what it thinks they are worth.

In markets where there is some private/public competition, the government sets the workers wages to what the private market says they should be. However, the government isn't constrained in its hiring like a private corporation. If the government wants a bigger budget and more employees, it can simply take more money by using weapons.



edit on 23-2-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by AP-Chris
 


The reality is that the gent making $100K/year would in reality be bringing home closer to 50K when all of those taxes were excluded from his take home pay and that is a big difference. I would also eliminate their having to pay for things like car tabs, deduct that from their take home and give them state issued liscence plates, say a different color than the rest of the paying public. The point is this: Far too many public sector employees think that they have the right to a free ride. That they produce as much value as a private sector employee and that the organizations they work in actually add value to the communities they serve. They should wear the stigma associated with living off the back of the rest of us. No some of them will be proud to wear that stigma and thats fantastic and perhaps those are the ones we want actually working for the government. Others would not and they would quit and thats a good thing.

Oh, I'm sure that someone is going to jump on the police and firefighter bandwagon. As far as the police go, in all too many instances they are simply a fee enforcement/collection arm of the government. As far as firefighters, there are plenty of places where those services are provided by volunteers. In any event, you would either pay for that service or you would'nt. You would assume the risk associated with not paying. If taxes were at a reasonable level in this country, folks would have the disposable cash to pay for them.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
It doesn't make much sense like most of what you post. The expense of having the citizens individually fund each endeavor would far exceed the expense of including the eventual tax payment in the state employees salary. Each employee has a different tax rate, exemptions, dedductible expenses, etc so to standardize pay like you suggest would be an expensive nightmare at best. And how about federal taxes? None of the state employee's pay comes from the federal government, so why an exemption on that tax? Youre not a state employee are you? I know plenty who hate all unions and all government but yet are still very willing to accept their fat pensions. It's pretty sick.

I keep wondering when you are going to run off into the woods in isolation. It is clear from your many threads that you hate everything about everything and want a world where only you control what you want to do. The middle of no where, by yourself, is about the only place you will get what you want. So get packing already.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AP-Chris
This is a stupid concept.

Either everyone should pay taxes or no one should. You can't pick and choose who pays taxes based on who their employer is.

As an employer the "State" already does not have to pay taxes on profits like a corporation does and, yes, the state does take profits. In Texas, our state ran an $8 billion surplus. The state didn't pay federal taxes for that profit and they didn't return the money to the taxpayer. Instead they used the money to create more government that they would eventually have to tax us more to support.

Also, there should be no unionization of state employess since, working for the state, they already receive benifits in excess of most privately employed citizens.


Actually AP-Chris;mnemeth1 makes alot of sense: ( huh? we agree on something?) he's pulling down the facade of and showing you the the tax system. Now if he can just shake his "buddies" of the idea: "tax cuts cost the govt money"I 'd be buying his friday night "pints" for life. State employee unions who are "bargaining" for higher wages or benefits are bargaining against their fellow citizens who foot the bills.

Because The govt doesn't produce anything and can't give someone something it didn't take from somebody else first (I believe you political thinkers call that the "violence inherent in the system)"...



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join