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 10-06-2017, 08:58 AM
 
Location: WA
5,392 posts, read 21,382,389 times
Reputation: 5878

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
In two important cases, Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits. They are entirely at the discretion of CONgress.
(FICA is NOT insurance - for you)

And it's 100% voluntary - thus constitutional voluntary servitude. (Which is also how Obamacare was ruled to be a constitutional tax... via FICA!)
“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration
http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
Get your own personalized letter from the SocSecAdmin . . .

Don't believe me - politely ask your congresscritter about the tax and bribe system in place since 1935.

Write polite questionnaires to Congressmen:

1. What law compels all Americans in the USA to enroll and participate in FICA?
2. What law punishes any American in the USA who does not participate in FICA?
3. What law punishes any American business that hires unnumbered Americans?
4. What is the official procedure to volunteer out of FICA?
5. What privilege am I exercising when I do not participate in FICA that would incur an income tax on my wages?
Technically you are right, but in the real world we live in today if you want to be employed, avoid complications with government, and qualify for the SS/medicare safety net you follow these rules. We have a gigantic, expensive, and intrusive government but it appears that many citizens like it that way and want more!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-06-2017, 01:21 PM
 
1,286 posts, read 686,065 times
Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
We have been through this so many times, it is really becoming tiresome. However, here it is, one more time, because you just don't seem to get it.

A regressive tax is one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases. ...
TaxPhd, we have been through this so many times, it is really becoming tiresome. However, here it is, one more time, because you just don't seem to get it.

Regardless of other opinions as to what additionally would qualify as regressive taxation, YOUR criteria of a regressive tax is “one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases.
Most people, (and I'm among them) that consider a tax system granting wealthier or other wise more favored taxpayers with more favorable effective tax rates upon their incomes, as a regressive tax system.

USA's FICA tax upon payroll amounts applicable to individuals are annually “capped”. The effective tax rate of FICA upon higher earning employees are less than that of all other employees. The effective rate of income is the average rate applied to the taxpayers gross incomes or net incomes.
Furthermore FICA is levied only upon individuals' employment derived incomes rather than all individuals' incomes. Thus, individual's with employment derived incomes pay an additionally greater effective rate of federal taxes than others that earn the same same gross adjusted incomes from other sources.

Additionally, there are a great many items that enable the reduction of individual's commercially derived taxable incomes that are not applicable to individuals that derive their incomes only from employment.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Consider the FICA payroll tax and the Republican's current income tax reform proposal of 3 tax brackets for regular incomes. The middle income bracket is a 25% regular tax rate. (Republican leadership have not yet published their proposed range of taxable incomes subject to the 25% regular income bracket). The other 2 brackets are 12% and 35% regular tax rates.

Tax payers in the highest income bracket will be subject to to federal tax taxes ranging from zero to statically less than effectively 35% of their adjusted gross incomes.

Middle income earners will be subject to federal taxes ranging from zero to less than 25% of their adjusted gross earnings; but if they're wage earners, they're subject to 7.65% to less than 32.65% of their entire wages.

Lower income earners will be subject to federal taxes ranging from zero to less than 12% of their adjusted gross earnings; but if they're wage earners, they're statistically subject to 7.65% to less than 19.65% of their entire wages.
The working-poor are statistically all wage earners subject to 7.65%of their entire earned incomes.

Due to the inclusion of FICA payroll taxes, the effective federal tax rates applied upon individuals with similar annual incomes, are greater for those with employment derived incomes, (i.e. wage earners).

Regular income brackets' rates are the least favorable income tax rates. There are many exceptions, inclusions and waivers, justified and unjustified “loop holes” in our existing and proposed tax regulations granting specific sources and taxpayers that enable the reduction of gross adjusted incomes subject to income taxes. Wage earners are among our nation's lowest income earners and they are rarely among those granted any favors. We've always had “special strokes for special folks” and in most cases wage earners are not among those considered to be special folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 03:24 PM
 
1,286 posts, read 686,065 times
Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by 17thAndK View Post
The IRS states the following...
Key Terms
regressive tax
A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups.
https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandi...hm03_les02.jsp
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Supposn will be along shortly to tell you that you're wrong.
TaxPhd, it's incorrect when I post it, and correct when its posted by 17thAndK? We all agree, "A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups" is a regressive tax? Thus FICA alone or when included within our federal individuals' taxing is in some cases regressive.

Last edited by Supposn; 10-06-2017 at 03:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Raleigh
8,046 posts, read 5,884,308 times
Reputation: 9785
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCresident2014 View Post
<>
What does the "right to health" look like?
<>
Lets compare to other rights. The Right to Free speech means no one can limit the things you say on the basis of what you say, or who you are, or what you believe, within certain limits. Obscenity or pornography may be limited depending on your audience. Libel, slander, and endangering the public safety are not allowed, but otherwise no one can prevent your speech based on the content, or lack of it.
Freedom of religion seems more restricted, in as much as religious expression in public is discouraged. The main thrust is there is no requirement for a particular religion in order to hold public office. You can be any religion you want, even to the point of making one up on the spot. You can do things in the name of the religion as long as they are not otherwise illegal.
The right to assemble is exercised every day, but to hold an organized rally may require a permit. The content of speeches there can't be regulated other than as noted above.
Let's not talk so much about the right to bear arms, this week, okay? Too distracting for us now.
The right to health comes from the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." No one can block a person's right to these things on the basis of some arbitrary political objective. You cannot be denied healthcare based on things you have said or based on your religion, ability, gender, or sexual orientation. That's the same as any other right.
But as with all the other rights, you have to be able to pay for them. If you want to make a speech you may have to hire a hall or buy airtime. If you want to exercise freedom to bear arms, you have to buy a gun. To exercise a religion, you have to meet the expectations of that religious group as to financial support.
To exercise the right to good health you have to pay the bills for good food, exercise, shelter, clothes, any supplements you think are needed, and especially for medical care.
"You have the right, but you have to pay the Piper."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 06:18 PM
 
659 posts, read 276,164 times
Reputation: 744
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
We have been through this so many times, it is really becoming tiresome. However, here it is, one more time, because you just don't seem to get it.

A regressive tax is one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases. That's it. It has NO other definition. And FICA does not fit the definition of a regressive tax.

What you are calling "regressive" is actually "disparate impact." The idea that a tax has a greater negative impact on a poor person than on a wealthier person. And this has been appropriately addressed in this thread, that EVERYTHING that one spends money on has a greater disparate impact on the poor vis-a-vis the rich. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about a tax or a gallon of milk.

Again, I'm not sure of the reason(s) for your continued insistence that various taxes are regressive when they clearly aren't. Words have meaning, and you do yourself no favors by insisting that a word means what you want it to, rather than what it actually does.
Well said. Agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 11:31 AM
 
6,089 posts, read 2,817,970 times
Reputation: 6005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Regardless of other opinions as to what additionally would qualify as regressive taxation, YOUR criteria of a regressive tax is “one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases.
That isn't MY criteria, that is THE definition of a regressive tax.

Quote:
Most people, (and I'm among them) that consider a tax system granting wealthier or other wise more favored taxpayers with more favorable effective tax rates upon their incomes, as a regressive tax system.
I still don't know why you continue to try to re-define this. Words have meaning. And attempting to change those meanings isn't useful.

Oh, and EVERY taxpayer, rich and poor, enjoys an effective income tax rate that is lower than their marginal rate.

Quote:
USA's FICA tax upon payroll amounts applicable to individuals are annually “capped”. The effective tax rate of FICA upon higher earning employees are less than that of all other employees. The effective rate of income is the average rate applied to the taxpayers gross incomes or net incomes.
FICA isn't regressive. The actual AND effective FICA tax rate is EXACTLY the same for everyone that pays FICA taxes.

Quote:
Furthermore FICA is levied only upon individuals' employment derived incomes rather than all individuals' incomes. Thus, individual's with employment derived incomes pay an additionally greater effective rate of federal taxes than others that earn the same same gross adjusted incomes from other sources.
Everyone pays the exact same rate on the same types and quantities of income. If one wishes to not pay FICA taxes, one can stop earning FICA wages.

Quote:
Additionally, there are a great many items that enable the reduction of individual's commercially derived taxable incomes that are not applicable to individuals that derive their incomes only from employment.
Are you really complaining that business income is calculated differently than wage income? Really?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 02:44 PM
 
6,250 posts, read 3,445,382 times
Reputation: 5673
Quote:
Originally Posted by bg7 View Post
Its an insurance payment. If you started uncapping it then its only fair that you uncap the payouts also. If I'm paying a premium of $200 I'm expecting more payback if I claim then the guy paying $100.
Thank you. I hate the rants on capping when people don’t realize the lower contributors get more in SS in relation to their contributions than higher earners. Want to uncap contributions? Sounds fair, just uncap benefits and recalculate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 04:14 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 2,817,970 times
Reputation: 6005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
TaxPhd, it's incorrect when I post it, and correct when its posted by 17thAndK? We all agree, "A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups" is a regressive tax? Thus FICA alone or when included within our federal individuals' taxing is in some cases regressive.
It's not wrong when you post it. It's wrong when you claim that various taxes are regressive, when they in fact are not. FICA, is in NO cases regressive, as it takes the exact same percentage from everyone that pays FICA.

Are you now agreeing with me on the definition of a regressive tax? It appears you are, based on this post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2017, 04:24 AM
 
1,286 posts, read 686,065 times
Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
That isn't MY criteria, that is THE definition of a regressive tax.

I still don't know why you continue to try to re-define this. Words have meaning. And attempting to change those meanings isn't useful.

Oh, and EVERY taxpayer, rich and poor, enjoys an effective income tax rate that is lower than their marginal rate.

FICA isn't regressive. The actual AND effective FICA tax rate is EXACTLY the same for everyone that pays FICA taxes.

Everyone pays the exact same rate on the same types and quantities of income. If one wishes to not pay FICA taxes, one can stop earning FICA wages.

Are you really complaining that business income is calculated differently than wage income? Really?
TaxPhd, you contend a “regressive tax” is “one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases”. I'm unaware of any creditable opinion that would not accept that a description of a regressive tax; but it's a narrow definition of regressive taxation.
Many , if not most creditable definers of a regressive tax would qualify any tax with an effective rate that increases or decreases inversely to taxpayers' differing lessor or greater incomes or wealth, as being a “regressive tax”.

If you google different versions of “regressive tax”, you will encounter a great many of those sufficiently creditable opinions. No one has “broadened” the definition of the word “regressive”. Your complaint is that all creditable definitions of the word or concept are not the same one that you have chosen; we don't all worship in your church.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2017, 05:04 AM
 
1,286 posts, read 686,065 times
Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjames68 View Post
Thank you. I hate the rants on capping when people don’t realize the lower contributors get more in SS in relation to their contributions than higher earners. Want to uncap contributions? Sounds fair, just uncap benefits and recalculate.
MarkJames68, a tax's attributes and the attributes of what tax revenues fund are usually mutual considerations; if the purposes of a taxes revenues are explicitly allocated, this usually remains true.

FICA tax's regressive attributes and the progressive character of Social Security retirement benefit's to individual retirees are different topics; (although if FICA were not “capped”, there would be more revenue to fund aggregate Social Security retirement benefits).
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

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.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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