U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-08-2014, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,053 posts, read 13,262,843 times
Reputation: 13868

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
FICA payroll tax; our most regressive tax.
Questionable Premise

If you have sufficient background information to know that a premise is questionable or unlikely to be acceptable, then you use this fallacy if you accept an argument based on that premise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
FICA does not at present fully sustain these social programs, it is our most regressive federal tax and this shift of revenue sources is preferable to the reduction of Medicare or Social Security’s retirement benefits.
Misrepresentation

If the misrepresentation occurs on purpose, then it is an example of lying. If the misrepresentation occurs during a debate in which there is misrepresentation of the opponent’s claim, then it would be the cause of a straw man fallacy.

FICA is intended to support OASI and OADI.

The HI (Medicare) tax supports Medicare.

Suppressed Evidence

Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.

The last FICA tax increase was in 1990 --- 24 years ago. Prior to 1990, FICA had never gone more than 12 years without an increase, and the Rockefeller Commission (appointed by Ford) and the Volker Commission (appointed by Reagan) both concluded that FICA payroll taxes would need to be periodically increased.

With respect to Medicare, in spite of the fact that Medicare Trustees have repeatedly and continually begged Congress for an increase in the payroll tax, a reduction in payments, or a combination of both, Congress has refused to do so since 2001.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Sporty and Misty, as you wrote, originally Social Security retirement was conceived as primarily an insurance plan but due to medical advances and to an additional extent to Medicare, our population’s life expectancy is greater than it was in 1935 when the first Social Security act was passed. The enactment of the affordable care Act is expected to increase the extent of this trend.
Your tactics are intellectually dishonest, as you continue to conflate OASI/OADI with Medicare. They are two separate programs.

Additionally, you proffered more fallacies...

Lying

A fallacy of reasoning that depends on intentionally saying something that is known to be false. If the lying occurs in an argument’s premise, then it is an example of the fallacy of questionable premise.


Suppressed Evidence

Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.


You lied and suppressed evidence by refusing to inform readers that evaluations of life-span are based on Life-Expectancy from Birth, and on Life-Expectancy from Age 65.

In 1940, life-span was 73 years for men and 78 years for women.

See Table V.A3.—Period Life Expectancy, 2013 Trustee Report page 92

You also suppressed evidence and lied by refusing to tell readers that both the Rockefeller and Volker Commissions took into account new life-span standards inclusive of modern technology when each reported its conclusions in the 1970s and 1980s --- in other words both Commissions knew at that time that people would be living into their 80s and 90s....they would say, "I told you so."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
For 40% of retirees, their SS benefits are what enables them to stay above the poverty income levels.
Suppressed Evidence

Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.



You refused to inform readers that the "federal" poverty level is a weighted average of all 1,539 separately functioning economies within the united States.


The real poverty level for a single person varies from as low as $4,100 annually to just over $32,000 annually. An example of such is given here...


Due to the differences in Cost-of Living and Purchasing Power two people, each receiving $1,100/month in Social Security Disability or Retirement....

equals $2092.95 per month in Cincinnati
equals $761.07. per month in San Fransisco


Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
The alternative is a greatly increased incidence of poverty in the USA.
Scare Tactic

If you suppose that terrorizing your opponent is giving him a reason for believing that you are correct, then you are using a scare tactic and reasoning fallaciously.

Define "poverty" objectively in no uncertain terms so that it may be uniformly applied to every person in the united States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
It’s ironic that conservatives hated FDR because he was “a traitor to his (financial) class....
Lying

A fallacy of reasoning that depends on intentionally saying something that is known to be false. If the lying occurs in an argument’s premise, then it is an example of the fallacy of questionable premise.

The best evidence shows a Republican governor created social security. Governor F D Roosevelt of New York (State) copied other existing State plans to develop one for New York State citizens.

FDR illegally nationalized 35 existing State social security plans in 1935 into one plan to the detriment of all Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
It seems characteristic of conservatives that they cannot take “yes” for an answer. They’re always striving to achieve what is to their own worst interest. If they could repeal Social Security retirement laws or undermine the program by “privatization or other means, the political consequences would be very much contrary to their vision of what our nation should be.
Beware of what you wish for, you may get it.
Yeah, gosh, how terrible to return Social Security to the States whence it came, and have the States privatize it into retirement insurance.

Why should a minimum wage earner pay $21/month to get $1,600/month in retirement benefits under a privatized insurance plan?

That's stupid. A minimum wage earner does not deserve $1,600/month.

It's better that minimum wage earners pay $96/month at present for a bountiful $793/month in benefits under the Liberal's "everyone gets it rammed down their throat" ideology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
[Refer to the discussion thread entitled Social Security’s justification.
Great....more propaganda and fallacies.

I'll certainly be looking forward to that...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2014, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,053 posts, read 13,262,843 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
The most regressive taxes are the ones in which everyone pays exactly the same, regardless of their ability to pay. Automobile license plates, for example.
Those are fees, not taxes. Automobiles are an option, not a requirement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikBEggs View Post
Sales taxes are about as regressive as they come, far more regressive than a flat income tax.
Naturally, you have no proof of that.

Not impressed....

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 03:38 PM
 
460 posts, read 392,975 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Great....more propaganda and fallacies.

I'll certainly be looking forward to that...

Mircea
All I have to say is this: The Adventures of Fallacy Man - Existential Comics
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 03:51 PM
 
460 posts, read 392,975 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Naturally, you have no proof of that.

Not impressed....

Mircea
Are you rejecting the foundational economic premise of marginal utility here? If not, a sales tax will always be more regressive than a flat income tax unless that flat income tax has little or no exclusion. It is an absolute fact that lower income people spend all of their income on goods and services and very often spend MORE than their total income on goods and services when they face unexpected expenses or decreases in income.

The only way I can theorize the opposite might be true is because poorer persons are renters and their rent payments would not be directly taxed, in which case a no or low exclusion flat tax would reach a greater percentage of all income (earned or spent) than a sales tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 03:56 PM
 
460 posts, read 392,975 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Those are fees, not taxes. Automobiles are an option, not a requirement.
I should have responded to this earlier, but are you so pedantic and technical that you think automobiles are an "option" that many people can avoid? With few exceptions, America has poor and/or unreliable public transportation.

De facto or practical limits are real, and for most people who work, automobiles are indeed a requirement, and fees on their use are an extremely regressive form of taxation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2014, 05:07 PM
 
1,679 posts, read 2,488,658 times
Reputation: 1284
Social security is progressive not regressive

It is progressive because the poor get a larger SS payout relative to their taxes paid.

The SS formula pays out 90% of ave 35 year earnings 0-10K, 32% on pay from 10K to 55K and 15% from 55-117K.

So you get the best benefit if you make 10K dollars.

If you make over 50K you are better off opting out of SS and saving the payroll taxes. That amounts to more than the benefit is worth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 12:00 AM
 
460 posts, read 392,975 times
Reputation: 1091
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter View Post
Social security is progressive not regressive

It is progressive because the poor get a larger SS payout relative to their taxes paid.

The SS formula pays out 90% of ave 35 year earnings 0-10K, 32% on pay from 10K to 55K and 15% from 55-117K.

So you get the best benefit if you make 10K dollars.

If you make over 50K you are better off opting out of SS and saving the payroll taxes. That amounts to more than the benefit is worth.
The serious flaw in this analysis is that poorer individuals have MUCH shorter life expectancies from age 65 onward. This isn't to say that the distinction entirely disappears, but it is (at minimum) severely diminished.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 08:50 AM
 
8,301 posts, read 3,463,333 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs View Post
The serious flaw in this analysis is that poorer individuals have MUCH shorter life expectancies from age 65 onward. This isn't to say that the distinction entirely disappears, but it is (at minimum) severely diminished.
Not only that, a tax is progressive or not based on the income or tax base of that person or population at the time the tax is levied or paid. Not based on future or potential benefits.

I guess that one could argue or call it 'functionally progressive'. But future benefits paid out are not tied to current tax money collected in most all cases, as most Federal programs and pay outs are linked to the general fund. Other than the few sequestered taxes, most all taxes are commingled in the general fund with other taxes collected and/or combined with new money created through deficit spending all along the way. So this sort of progressiveness is harder to define or pin down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Paranoid State
12,685 posts, read 9,451,486 times
Reputation: 14953
Again, it isn't a tax. It is an insurance premium.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2014, 09:28 AM
 
8,301 posts, read 3,463,333 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post
Again, it isn't a tax. It is an insurance premium.
It is levied like a tax, so its effect on current income is about the same, regardless of the future pay out.

Unless a Federal tax, fee or fine (or insurance premium if you'd like) is sequestered, it ends up in the general fund and basically acts like a tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top