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 10-08-2017, 06:19 AM
 
1,148 posts, read 523,448 times
Reputation: 1228

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
(although if FICA were not “capped”, there would be more revenue to fund aggregate Social Security retirement benefits).
That's because it would just amount to a massive tax increase. If that's what you want, just say it and stop the regressive progressive nonsense.

(it's silly to have to post the same response to your same silly comment on two different threads).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-09-2017, 10:40 AM
 
1,286 posts, read 686,065 times
Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
That's because it would just amount to a massive tax increase. If that's what you want, just say it and stop the regressive progressive nonsense.
SuiteLiving, relative to USA's economy, the effective tax increase to eliminate annual caps of individuals' FICA taxes wouldn't even be perceivable; in the opinions of the majority of individuals that would actually be paying for those increase, it would consider the increase to be of comparatively little increase of their taxes; but to those on the Republican side of the congressional aisle, the prospect of the wealthier paying something more for Social Securities' net benefit to our nation's economy is intolerable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
(it's silly to have to post the same response to your same silly comment on two different threads).
If the same comment is precisely appropriate response to what was previously posted in both discussions, it would be less than appropriate not to post the same response to both previous posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 10:58 AM
 
1,148 posts, read 523,448 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
SuiteLiving, relative to USA's economy, the effective tax increase to eliminate annual caps of individuals' FICA taxes wouldn't even be perceivable; in the opinions of the majority of individuals that would actually be paying for those increase, it would consider the increase to be of comparatively little increase of their taxes; but to those on the Republican side of the congressional aisle, the prospect of the wealthier paying something more for Social Securities' net benefit to our nation's economy is intolerable.
Please provide a link to the survey or study that confirms the bolded statement.

The remark about Republican feelings on the matter is gratuitous and misplaced since the subject of political party ideology was not part of the discussion. It does however show your obvious bias.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 09:35 PM
 
1,286 posts, read 686,065 times
Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
Please provide a link to the survey or study that confirms the bolded statement.

The remark about Republican feelings on the matter is gratuitous and misplaced since the subject of political party ideology was not part of the discussion. It does however show your obvious bias.
SuiteLiving, my words, "in the opinions of the majority of individuals that would actually be paying for those increase, it would consider the increase to be of comparatively little increase of their taxes" are nonsense; although you did not describe those words as "gratuitous", that's exactly what they are.

Within discussions of economics, it's unusual if politics are not directly or indirectly involved. Political party ideology is germane within this forum and this topic.
The current income tax reforms being proposed by Republican congressional leadership will significantly reduce the extents and the numbers of progressive occurrences as our federal income taxes are levied upon individuals, and increase extents and the numbers of regressive occurrences.

Did I ever pretend to have reached a state of sainthood and being purely unbiased?

Last edited by Supposn; 10-09-2017 at 09:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2017, 10:34 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
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.
TaxPhd. No we don't agree on your definition but we both do agree with 17thAndK
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 07:20 AM
 
1,148 posts, read 523,448 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
my words, "in the opinions of the majority of individuals that would actually be paying for those increase, it would consider the increase to be of comparatively little increase of their taxes" are nonsense
I think most would agree. You still haven't supported your statement that uncapping FICA wages would not be a massive federal tax increase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
Within discussions of economics, it's unusual if politics are not directly or indirectly involved. Political party ideology is germane within this forum and this topic.
The current income tax reforms being proposed by Republican congressional leadership will significantly reduce the extents and the numbers of progressive occurrences as our federal income taxes are levied upon individuals, and increase extents and the numbers of regressive occurrences.
Apparently with you that's true, since you felt compelled to introduce it into the conversation. Personally, I'm capable of a more civilized discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2017, 09:06 AM
 
6,089 posts, read 2,817,970 times
Reputation: 6005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
TaxPhd. No we don't agree on your definition but we both do agree with 17thAndK
It's too bad that you don't understand that the definition provided by 17thAndK and my definition are exactly the same. Why would anyone listen to you when you don't even understand that basic issue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 04:41 PM
 
1,286 posts, read 686,065 times
Reputation: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
It's too bad that you don't understand that the definition provided by 17thAndK and my definition are exactly the same. Why would anyone listen to you when you don't even understand that basic issue?
TaxPhd, the only definition of a regressive tax you accept is “one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases”?

(A) When a taxpayer's annual wage exceeds the existing legally determined “cap”, which is currently $127,200, the FICA tax rate applied to that taxpayer's reduced, (7.65 – 6.2)% = 1.45%). TaxPhd, the only definition of a regressive tax you accept is “one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases”. You do not accept this described instance as being regressive, because the tax rate was reduced at some point where the tax base increased?

(B) FICA taxes are only levied upon wages and not levied upon incomes derived from sources other than employment. You argue that although the effective FICA tax rate for incomes not derived from employment is zero, FICA's levied upon a tax base of wages rather than all incomes or taxable incomes; thus this attribute is not a regressive characteristic.

17thAndK's provided definition of a regressive tax is “A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups”. When applied to all instances of conditions (A) and many instances of condition (B), this definition determines that FICA is a regressive tax.

TaxPhd, I don't doubt your understanding of the language and the words, but you're not overly careful as to how you read and write them. The difference between the definition provided by you and that provided by 17thAndK is the difference between our and your determination of FICA's attributes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 05:32 PM
 
6,089 posts, read 2,817,970 times
Reputation: 6005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
TaxPhd, the only definition of a regressive tax you accept is “one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases”?

(A) When a taxpayer's annual wage exceeds the existing legally determined “cap”, which is currently $127,200, the FICA tax rate applied to that taxpayer's reduced, (7.65 – 6.2)% = 1.45%). TaxPhd, the only definition of a regressive tax you accept is “one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases”. You do not accept this described instance as being regressive, because the tax rate was reduced at some point where the tax base increased?

(B) FICA taxes are only levied upon wages and not levied upon incomes derived from sources other than employment. You argue that although the effective FICA tax rate for incomes not derived from employment is zero, FICA's levied upon a tax base of wages rather than all incomes or taxable incomes; thus this attribute is not a regressive characteristic.

17thAndK's provided definition of a regressive tax is “A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups”. When applied to all instances of conditions (A) and many instances of condition (B), this definition determines that FICA is a regressive tax.
FICA is comprised of two components - SS and Medicare. Attempting to co-mingle them as you have done does not allow for a meaningful analysis, and it will lead to erroneous conclusions (such as those that you have drawn).

The SS portion of FICA is not an income tax, it is a wage tax. More specifically, it is a tax assessed on SS wages, which range from $0 - $127,200, not on total income. Regardless of the SS wage earned, the assessed tax is 6.2% That rate DOESN'T change, regardless of how much SS wages are earned. Given this fact, it is easy to see that the SS tax isn't regressive. Attempting to include total income in the numerator of the calculation is a classic "combining apples and oranges" problem. Since SS tax is only assessed on SS wages, including total income in the denominator is meaningless.

The medicare tax (which is separate from the SS tax) has no limit. It is assessed on Medicare wages, not on total income. The rate is 1.45% on Medicare wages up to $200,000. Above $200,000, there is an additional Medicare tax of .9% As with the SS tax, including total income in the denominator of the calculation is the same "apples and oranges" problem, because it is a tax that is not assessed on total income. So, not only is the Medicare tax NOT regressive, the inclusion of the additional Medicare tax on Medicare wages above $200,000 makes it clearly PROGRESSIVE.

QED

Quote:
TaxPhd, I don't doubt your understanding of the language and the words, but you're not overly careful as to how you read and write them. The difference between the definition provided by you and that provided by 17thAndK is the difference between our and your determination of FICA's attributes.
As I said before, my definition, and that provided by 17thAndK are exactly the same. They were then, and they still are now. And you still don't understand that.

I am beyond overly careful. Everything that I have posted on this topic is 100% true, accurate, and correct. As I said before, I am truly sorry that you aren't understanding it, but I don't believe it is possible to make it any more clear. Your quest of trying to find regressive taxes where they don't exist is nothing more than tilting at windmills, and you will find similar success as that found by Don Quixote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 05:34 PM
 
1,148 posts, read 523,448 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn View Post
TaxPhd, the only definition of a regressive tax you accept is “one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases”?

(A) When a taxpayer's annual wage exceeds the existing legally determined “cap”, which is currently $127,200, the FICA tax rate applied to that taxpayer's reduced, (7.65 – 6.2)% = 1.45%). TaxPhd, the only definition of a regressive tax you accept is “one in which the tax rate increases as the base to which it applies decreases”. You do not accept this described instance as being regressive, because the tax rate was reduced at some point where the tax base increased?

(B) FICA taxes are only levied upon wages and not levied upon incomes derived from sources other than employment. You argue that although the effective FICA tax rate for incomes not derived from employment is zero, FICA's levied upon a tax base of wages rather than all incomes or taxable incomes; thus this attribute is not a regressive characteristic.

17thAndK's provided definition of a regressive tax is “A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups”. When applied to all instances of conditions (A) and many instances of condition (B), this definition determines that FICA is a regressive tax.

TaxPhd, I don't doubt your understanding of the language and the words, but you're not overly careful as to how you read and write them. The difference between the definition provided by you and that provided by 17thAndK is the difference between our and your determination of FICA's attributes.
OASDI and HI are separate taxes

26 U.S. Code § 3101 - Rate of tax
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 6.2 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by the individual with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) [1]

(b) Hospital insurance
(1) In general
In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to 1.45 percent of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)).
(2) Additional tax
In addition to the tax imposed by paragraph (1) and the preceding subsection, there is hereby imposed on every taxpayer (other than a corporation, estate, or trust) a tax equal to 0.9 percent of wages which are received with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) during any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, and which are in excess of—
(A) in the case of a joint return, $250,000,
(B) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined in section 7703) filing a separate return, ½ of the dollar amount determined under subparagraph (A), and
(C) in any other case, $200,000.
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