Public Employees. Tax Free.

[BigRed]

I've had this discussion with folks for decades. I'll submit it here for discussion.

"Public employees" should not have their payroll income subject to income tax. Doing so increases the cost of the "public employee" to the taxpayer.

An example with made up numbers to illustrate the point.

An individual takes a public employee position paying 75,000 annually. I'll use a 10% tax rate for the illustration. That results in a tax of 7,500 leaving the public employee with a net take home of 67,500.

The public employee takes home 67,500, but taxpayers funding the employee have to pay 75,000 for that employee to to take home 67,500.

Why should the public employee be taxed on wages funded by citizens whose income was already taxed to fund the public employee?

What say you?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I've had this discussion with folks for decades. I'll submit it here for discussion.

"Public employees" should not have their payroll income subject to income tax. Doing so increases the cost of the "public employee" to the taxpayer.

An example with made up numbers to illustrate the point.

An individual takes a public employee position paying 75,000 annually. I'll use a 10% tax rate for the illustration. That results in a tax of 7,500 leaving the public employee with a net take home of 67,500.

The public employee takes home 67,500, but taxpayers funding the employee have to pay 75,000 for that employee to to take home 67,500.

Why should the public employee be taxed on wages funded by citizens whose income was already taxed to fund the public employee?

What say you?

While I see your point, and pretty much agree with it. What about contractors who work for the govt? Company A wins the bid to build a road, that bid is going to include whatever taxes that company is expecting to pay on the money it receives, which ups the cost to the taxpayer. And that is about as simple as an example as I could make. You could also figure in the taxes of company A's employees, in that the employer has to pay a wage high enough to attract competent workers, and that includes the taxes they pay, not to mention the portion of SS/medicare the employer has to pay. Same for those who supply goods or services to the govt.

Also while I'm sure the law could be written to cover it, what about public employees who also work in the private sector? Their public employee wages would raise their tax bracket for their private sector wages, and also cut into the deductions for them. What about those that are married and file jointly?

 

[wtburnette]

Down with income tax period IMO

 

[BigRed]

Down with income tax period IMO

Now you're talking!!

 

[wtburnette]

Everyone always yakking about people paying their fair share, all we have to do is move to a flat tax / sales tax only type of arrangement and everyone will pay taxes, even drug deals and other criminals (like politicians). That's why it never happens. Under the current system, if you can find the loopholes, or get your money illegally, you don't pay taxes.

 

[BigRed]

Everyone always yakking about people paying their fair share, all we have to do is move to a flat tax / sales tax only type of arrangement and everyone will pay taxes, even drug deals and other criminals (like politicians). That's why it never happens. Under the current system, if you can find the loopholes, or get your money illegally, you don't pay taxes.

Centralizing ***holes like to use the tax code as a way to manipulate societal behavior to suit them.

 

[snorko]

Would they also lose their child tax credits?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If the government can print all the money it wants, why should anybody ever pay taxes?

 

[BigRed]

If the government can print all the money it wants, why should anybody ever pay taxes?

Control

 

[rosejm]

I think this ends up being a wash.

We don't pay the employee's taxes, from our taxes.
But it's not like our taxes go down, because they're not contributing either.

This subtracts from both sides of the equation.

 

[Lex Concord]

Down with income tax period IMO

Yes, but property tax (for individuals, at least) first.

 

[actaeon277]

Do we want government officials MORE disconnected from consequences?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Would they also lose their child tax credits?

Yes. Because you should NEVER be tax negative. (e.g. Pay $1,000 in taxes and then receiving a $2,000 "refund" due to $3,000 in child tax credits. )

*IF* they are working tax free, their pay scale should be adjusted down accordingly to insure they dont outpace private positions doing the same job.

Why should a state office manager getting a state funded pension, good health benefits, optional 401k retirement plan, excessive vacation days, and union-like benefits and job protections get better take-home pay than an average office manager in private industry at-will worker without all of those extra bennies?

So with those extra benefits, that state office manager should at least have the same take home pay as their private industry cohorts. They are already making more than the average worker all things included. They dont need the extra perk of tax free income on top of it.

And when was the last time you saw a .gov worker that worked as hard as a private employee? Generally speaking they are FAR more entitled than the average worker. Yes, there are exceptions, but the majority of those I encounter are mediocre employees in no hurry to help you, or go above and beyond.

 

[wtburnette]

Yes, but property tax (for individuals, at least) first.

At the same time would be fine

 

[KLB]

It's a fair point and could be extended to government payouts like SS. Taxing money they give to someone else is silly, and just creates hassle and work.

 

[wtburnette]

It's a fair point and could be extended to government payouts like SS. Taxing money they give to someone else is silly, and just creates hassle and work.

Except I would then expect to be paid back at the very least what I put into that program. A benefit where you haven't had anything withheld for I can agree with your point, but I've paid into SS for far too long to just be told tough cookies.

 

[Leo]

The whole tax system is a corrupt plan that allows the government and the powerful to prosper by being irresponsible and holding the productive and responsible for the wrong doers criminality. A straight flat rate tax for every man and woman with no variance for any reason is a way out of the ability to corrupt.

An interesting alternative would be nothing but a use tax. You only pay tax on what is purchased new. That would be a straight percentage, but still tax the wealthy consumers, who buy the newest and best at every opportunity. The more humble citizens would save a ton of money by maintaining the property they already have and being able to buy something used tax free. That plan will also have an environmental gain, because nothing will be junked until it is completely used up.

I have no doubt that our legislature could corrupt either a flat rate or use tax system into an abomination even faster then they screwed up the system we have now.

 

[KellyinAvon]

And when was the last time you saw a .gov worker that worked as hard as a private employee? Generally speaking they are FAR more entitled than the average worker. Yes, there are exceptions, but the majority of those I encounter are mediocre employees in no hurry to help you, or go above and beyond.

Have you been spying on me again?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Have you been spying on me again?

Dont worry. There are a few like you (and a few other INGOers) that dont fit into that box.

 

[KLB]

Except I would then expect to be paid back at the very least what I put into that program. A benefit where you haven't had anything withheld for I can agree with your point, but I've paid into SS for far too long to just be told tough cookies.

Huh? I said you shouldn't have to pay income tax on it, not that you shouldn't get it.