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.
Originally Posted by Supposn:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving
I think most would agree. You still haven't supported your statement that uncapping FICA wages would not be a massive federal tax increase.
SuiteLiving, you consider uncapping FICA wages as a comparatively massive federal tax increase; my opinion is otherwise. I'm unaware of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office ever publishing data on this matter and they wouldn't publish a concluding opinion; that ain't their job.
But if there's any data on this matter, or we speculate on the extent of increased revenue it would provide, we can then compare it to the CBO's estimate of the Republican tax reform's impact upon our government's services and upon our federal budgets. President Trump and the congressional Republicans, (which are two very different concerns), both leave me pessimistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving
Apparently with you that's true, since you felt compelled to introduce it, [i.e. politics] into the conversation. Personally, I'm capable of a more civilized discussion.
SuiteLiving, you're implying that that politics is somewhat indecent and disreputable. We got what we elected and we can only hope for the best possible outcomes.
Presidents' Carter, Hoover, Lincoln were all exceptionally men of fine character, and our nation suffered during their terms of office.
Truman was a product of the infamous Pendergast machine, but his reputation continues to greatly improve. I consider him to be among the finest of our presidents. We're a better nation because he desegregated USA's military; he knew the risks and paid the political price. He was right (and I was wrong) when our nation fully participated in NATO. Our economy has been poorer because congress overrode his veto of the Taft-Hartley Act.
SuiteLiving, you're implying that that politics is somewhat indecent and disreputable.
Hardly. What I’m saying is that you assuming all republicans or democrats have a singular view on an issue is absurd and close minded. It does however explain the way you think and why you’re incapable of understanding simple concepts that have been repeatedly explained to you.
... What I’m saying is that you assuming all republicans or democrats have a singular view on an issue is absurd and close minded. It does however explain the way you think and why you’re incapable of understanding simple concepts that have been repeatedly explained to you.
SuiteLiving, I don't recall both houses of the U.S. Congress being so harshly divided as it has been since Obama was elected; not even in 1948 when Truman was campaigning against our “do nothing congress”. Republicans openly stated and did oppose what they previously supported, because they did not want to enable anything worthwhile to be passed during President Obama's term of office.
The House of Representatives 2010 vote for the Affordable Care Act was 219 to 212; more than 13% of the Democratic representatives voted against the bill. No Republican representative voted nay. I don't believe all Republicans in the house on that day had a singular view on the issue of medical insurance. I believe that regardless of each Republican representative's evaluation of the bill being voted upon that day, they all voted nay.
I fear that something similar to that may occur but this time the Republicans are the majority party.
I expect Republicans to attempt undermining Medicaid, Medicare and increase all medical insurance prices, I expect them to reduce federal expenditures without regard for the numbers of individuals that will be denied adequate medical care. I expect those spending cuts will be insufficient to cover the reduced tax revenues that will consequentially be due to the tax cuts they intend to pass. Those tax cuts will proportional to individuals' incomes, be of greater benefit to the more wealthy and of they'll be of lesser benefit to our aggregate economy.
TaxPhd, maybe I''m mistaken, you don't understand English? Otherwise you have little regard for what you read or write.
If 17thAndK's definition is applied to the conditions I described post #38, then in many such cases, FICA behaves as a regressive tax. Your definition differs from that provided by 17thAndK. Nothing you posted explains anything differently.
SuiteLiving, I don't recall both houses of the U.S. Congress being so harshly divided as it has been since Obama was elected; not even in 1948 when Truman was campaigning against our “do nothing congress”. Republicans openly stated and did oppose what they previously supported, because they did not want to enable anything worthwhile to be passed during President Obama's term of office.
The House of Representatives 2010 vote for the Affordable Care Act was 219 to 212; more than 13% of the Democratic representatives voted against the bill. No Republican representative voted nay. I don't believe all Republicans in the house on that day had a singular view on the issue of medical insurance. I believe that regardless of each Republican representative's evaluation of the bill being voted upon that day, they all voted nay.
I fear that something similar to that may occur but this time the Republicans are the majority party.
I expect Republicans to attempt undermining Medicaid, Medicare and increase all medical insurance prices, I expect them to reduce federal expenditures without regard for the numbers of individuals that will be denied adequate medical care. I expect those spending cuts will be insufficient to cover the reduced tax revenues that will consequentially be due to the tax cuts they intend to pass. Those tax cuts will proportional to individuals' incomes, be of greater benefit to the more wealthy and of they'll be of lesser benefit to our aggregate economy.
Now you are now talking about politicians.
The term "Republicans" is not limited to politicians, it refers to all of those who subscribe to that party affiliation. Therefore your commentary includes all of those individuals, and you're proposing to speak to what those millions of people think? I don't think so.
TaxPhd, maybe I''m mistaken, you don't understand English? Otherwise you have little regard for what you read or write.
If 17thAndK's definition is applied to the conditions I described post #38, then in many such cases, FICA behaves as a regressive tax. Your definition differs from that provided by 17thAndK. Nothing you posted explains anything differently.
There is no "FICA tax". Under FICA there are 2 taxes.
Section 3101(a) imposes a 6.2% tax for Old age and survivors disability insurance on a certain amount of wages.
In addition Section 3101(b) imposes a 1.45% (plus) tax for Hospital insurance on all wages.
If you look at your pay stub and your W-2, there are separate line items for the 2 separate taxes.
TaxPhd, maybe I''m mistaken, you don't understand English? Otherwise you have little regard for what you read or write.
If 17thAndK's definition is applied to the conditions I described post #38, then in many such cases, FICA behaves as a regressive tax. Your definition differs from that provided by 17thAndK. Nothing you posted explains anything differently.
Supposn,
A simple question. . .
When calculating the effective rate of an income tax, which of the following formulas would you use:
1) (Income Tax)/(Total Income)
or
2) (Income Tax)/(Total Income + Total Wealth)
I hope that you would choose #1. And if so, why wouldn't you use formula #2?
(Although the word “insurance” appears in FICA's title, a significant portion of the purposes which the taxes were were intended for and do fund, are for other than insurance purposes).
In many instances the tax behaves as a regressive tax. This is certainly true when the tax is considered as defined in the description provided by 17thAndK, “A tax that takes a larger percentage of income from low-income groups than from high-income groups”.
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.
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.
