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 12-01-2018, 03:30 PM
 
1,099 posts, read 585,020 times
Reputation: 312

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Again, you have this wrong. Income transfer from affluent people to less affluent people does not benefit the economy. What benefits the economy is investment. If you want to truly benefit the economy, you'd do a Soylent Green and euthanize elderly people who can't support themselves. If you did that, you wouldn't need the 15.2% tax overhead for Medicaid and Social Security.


Social Security is like any other progressive system. Affluent people pay in far more than they will ever take out of the system. Everybody else is net takers from the system. That's how a Social Democracy works. In parts of the world where a country has a very homogeneous population, you typically have more Social Democracy than a place like the United States which has a very heterogeneous population. It's politically tough to get white people to vote for generous social policy that benefits brown people and black people. If you're Norway with 5 million people who share race, language, and culture, it's way easier to support democratic socialism. Ditto Japan which has almost zero immigration.


As I wrote above, I live in a Social Democracy and view it as my obligation as a citizen to pay taxes that support people who are unable to support themselves. Personally, I would bump the tax rates and make Social Security more generous since defined benefit pensions anywhere but in the public sector have totally vanished. Most people won't save for the future. FICA and Medicare taxes are the way of insisting on it. As a Rockefeller Republican, I'd like the other aspects of the safety net to have more personal accountability. If you're receiving Medicare, you need to be held accountable for taking the steps to keep yourself healthy. If you smoke, drink excessively, or have lousy diet/exercise, I don't think society should be generous with spending for chronic behavior-induced health problems. If you do everything right and life happens, be generous.
GeoffD, again, you have this almost entirely incorrect.
Social Security retirement benefits are not (as you believe), a particular a transfer of wealth from more the more to the lesser affluent and the very regressive FICA tax on wages particularly shields the wealthy from most of the tax. The earmarked programs that FICA payroll taxes fund are generally beneficial to our entire economy. Supplemental Security Income, (SSI), rather than Social Security retirement itself, are transfers of wealth from more affluent people to the poor).
The programs funded by FICA payroll taxes are net beneficial to our nation’s economic ans social well-being. The wealthy, who have the greatest investment into our nation, derive the greatest indirect benefits from the economic consequences due to the programs that FICA funds.

FICA payroll tax is not a progressive tax, but rather the most regressive of all federal taxes.
FICA payroll taxes on wages are collected from wages, statistically the entire commercially derived incomes of the poor. FICA payroll taxes are not applicable to all other individuals’ income sources other than wages. The entire overwhelming majority middle or lesser annual incomes earned by individuals are wage incomes. Wealthier individuals’ wages beyond $13,900 in 2019, are only subject to a FICA payroll tax rate reduced by over 81%.
For further discussion of FICA,
Refer to Replacing reduced FICA payroll tax rates with a federal general sales tax.
If you do everything right, you're not a human.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2018, 04:27 AM
 
11,725 posts, read 6,078,418 times
Reputation: 21642
Social Security pension payout is massively progressive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 04:33 AM
 
65,705 posts, read 67,058,130 times
Reputation: 43999
yep , it is certainly massively progressive . a dollar paid in can buy as much as 6x the benefit for a low income earner as a high income earner
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2018, 08:16 AM
 
1,099 posts, read 585,020 times
Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
Social Security pension payout is massively progressive.
GeoffD, Social Security retirement benefits are calculated to favor lower income beneficiaries, but it's certainly not "massively progressive". the calculation and nature of the tax rate and the collection of the tax itself is very regressive.

Supplemental Security Income, (aka SSI) as its name implies), is not the same thing as the conventional retirement program. SSI's has an additional and separate purpose to assist those beneficiaries that would otherwise be seriously impoverished. SSI certainly operates as a charity.

The consequences of both SS retirement and SSI programs are of net benefit to our nation's economic and social well-being. Wealthy taxpayers derive the greater indirect benefits due to those economic consequences.
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act's payroll tax upon wages is the most regressive of all federal taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:22 PM
 
4,295 posts, read 1,599,339 times
Reputation: 5441
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshultz View Post
https://www.bloombergquint.com/globa...-taxes-in-2016

Some highlights:
The top 1% paid more than the bottom 90%
The top 50% paid 90% of all income taxes
The top 0.001% (about 1400 people) paid 3.25% of all income taxes
The bottom 50% paid 3% of all taxes
Those taxes on the rich are not high enough. If current trends hold, the top 1% will own 2/3rds of all wealth. How did this happen? They have gamed the system using armies of lobbyists to tilt the playing field in their favor. It's all rigged. We do not have a level playing field in this country.

Instead of earning money the old fashioned way by hard work and honest profit, the wealthy have increasingly become adept at "rent seeking." Google it. Rent seeking is the practice of gaining wealth and income by obtaining preferential treatment in laws and regulations. It's wrong and destructive. Tax 'em to high heaven.
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.

2005-2018, 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