Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Actually, it's the bottom 51%. 51% of income earners pay NO federal income tax whatsoever.
30% of income earners actually get MORE money from the federal government in than they pay in income tax. 
All documented here:
http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/r...1-ffc00b5c00ef |
Nice link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10
You don't really understand the concept of net worth do you? Everyone has one. It may only be a dollar.. heck it can even be a negative. You said you wanted to tax net worth... then you better first learn what you'll be taxing. Got 50 cents in your pocket... you've got net worth.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
Assets minus liabilities.
Negative net worth is the same as not having a net worth.
|
And as soon as you start taxing net worth, you'll see a lot of negative net worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
To refuse to raise taxes under any circumstances or risk losing your position is at most treasonous and at least determental to the growth of this country
|
It think it was Satayana who said that those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Let's look at your past.
At four different points in your recent history, you were experiencing economic strife or instability. You raised taxes, and these are the results:
1] Republican-controlled House and Senate enacts the largest tax increase in history resulting in depression;
2] Democrat-controlled House and Senate enacts a tax increase that causes a major recession;
3] Democrat-controlled House and Senate enacts a tax increase that causes a minor recession;
4] Republican-controlled House and Senate enacts a tax increase that causes a minor recession.
Given that you are now experiencing a period of economic strife or instability, you might want to rethink your position on raising taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby
By the way increased cost are passed onto renters. Suppose heating fule prices increase? Would landloards sell their property or raise their rents?
|
That depends. If heat is included, the landlord will most like raise rents, but if the tenant is is responsible for heating, the no rent increase is likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
A fair tax code would be a flat tax.
|
Not in the United States.
Why?
Because it is the United States and not Norway.
A State could probably successfully implement a Flat Tax, but the federal government cannot. Why? Because the cost-of-living varies dramatically from State-to-State and often from city-to-city within a State.
That is easily proven here:
Fred lives in Ohio, earns $24,000 and pays $450/month for rent including electricity, cooking gas and heat, $189/month new car payment, $60/month for full coverage car insurance with $0 on Collision/Comprehensive, eats extremely well on $200/month, pays 5.5% sales tax.
Fred has a disposable income of $1,101 per month.
Frank lives in California, earns $36,000 a pays $900/month, plus averages $310 per month in electricity, cooking gas and heat, $229/month for the exact same car Fred owns, because California requires special emission controls, $250/month for full coverage car insurance with a $500 deductible on Collision/Comprehensive, pays $240/month for the same food Fred does and pays 7.5% sales tax.
Frank has a disposable income of $1,071 per month.
Fred makes $12,000 less than Frank, but has an higher disposable income of $1,101 per month.
Under Perry's Flat Tax Plan which allows for a personal deduction
A: ($24,000 - $12,500) * 20% = $2,300
B: ($36,000 - $12,500) * 20% = $4,700
Frank makes 33.3% more than Fred yet Frank pays 52% more.
How is that fair?
Fred has a pre-tax disposable income of $1,101 per month, but after the Flat Tax it would be $1,101 - $191 per month = $910 per month
Frank has a pre-tax disposable income of $1,071 per month, but after the Flat Tax it would be $1,071 - $391 = $680 per month.
Again, how is that fair? Frank only makes $12,000 more than Fred, but Frank ends up with almost $300/month less in disposable income. How is that fair?
Sure, Frank makes more money, but his life-style and standard of living are worse than Fred who makes less money.
Does that make sense? Earn more and have a lower standard of living?
Again, if the cost of living and purchasing power were uniform through the entire United States, then a Flat Tax would be fair, and it would make sense.
Perhaps 300 years from now the US (if it still exists) will have a uniform cost of living.
I specifically selected low incomes just show that most Americans believe a Flat Tax is a good idea, until they actually have to start paying a Flat Tax at which time they would start screaming bloody murder.
Also, with Frank having $300 less in disposable income, how exactly will that boost your economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10
Nope.. The sooner folks learn that life isn't fair.. the better off we'll all be.
|
Some people are under the misguided notion that my function here on Planet Earth is to subsidize their life-style.
They are sadly mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
No, FICA was a way to pay for social security. Social security is the program that ensures grandma doesn't starve on the street.
The fallacy is assuming that FICA must be used to pay for social security, or that it is even fair or beneficial to do so.
|
That's a moot point since the General Fund is paying for Social Security at the expense of the Trust Fund, and that is irrespective of the payroll tax cut, meaning even if there were no payroll tax cut, you would still be depleting the Trust Fund by paying benefits from the General Fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus
Social security is not an insurance program. That's what they tell conservatives, so it won't look like welfare.
If Social security was an insurance program, it would only pay out to people who needed it.
|
Have no fear, as it will ultimately come to that.
Let's investigate removing the cap on taxable income for Social Security.
The IRS says that there were 236,883 Americans in 2009 who earned more than $1 Million. The hauled in $727 Billion, or an average of $3,069,025
I'll show you how the idiots at the CBO do this, and how fantasy and reality don't mix.
We'll just call the Social Security cap $110,000 for easy math.
236,883 people would normally pay 6.2% on $110,000 for a total of $6,820 per person and an aggregated total of $1,615,542,060 ($1.6 Million).
CBO will take the $727 Billion and subtract 236,883 * $110,000 from that figure to arrive at the untaxed figure.
236,883 * $110,000 = $26,057,130,000 ($26 Billion).
$727 Billion
-$26 Billion
----------
$701 Billion
CBO then thinks that they will tax that $701 Billion at 6.2% and get revenues in the amount of:
$43,462,000,000 ($43 Billion) in additional FICA Social Security revenues.
Sounds good so far, except that is how it appears on paper.
Reality is something else.
Suppose I own a business and earn $1 Million per year. I pay 6.2% on the first $110,000 which comes to $6,820 and then you think I'm going to pay 6.2% on the remaining $890,000 and you think you're going to collect another $55,180 from me.
But you're not.
Why? Because I'm going to pay myself $110,000 in cash and then pay myself $890,000 in Class B stock, which you cannot tax for Social Security.
Then in the following year I'll convert that $890,000 in Class B stock to cash, pay the personal income tax on the $890,000 but not the Social Security Tax, and then we're done.
That's just one of more than 100 ways I can pay myself a salary and avoid paying the Social Security tax on it.
Over half of those 236,883 people who earn more than $1 Million are NBA, NFL, Major League Baseball, actors, actresses, musicians or entertainers. Deferring compensation for them would be slightly more difficult than a president/CEO of a business, but it can be done.
So we add the $1.6 Million to the theoretical $43 Billion and we get a grand hypothetical total of, uh, $43 Billion (rounded off).
So here's my question, if your Social Security needs $1+ TRILLION in 2020 to pay monthly benefits, how does the additional $43 Billion help?
It doesn't really.
If you do nothing, the Social Security Trust Fund will collapse in 2028 (or earlier if your economy is worse than I predict) and at that point you will need $1+TRILLION from the General Fund to pay Social Security, and that is combined with a 23% across the board reduction in Social Security benefits for all.
Did I mention that you don't have $1 TRILLION in the General Fund to pay for that?
If you eliminate the cap, and assuming you can in reality collect the money you think you will get, then if you means test, you might be able to save Social Security through about 2040.
Beyond that you won't have it, because nearly 2/3 will have to be funded by the General Fund, and you cannot afford to pump $2 TRILLION from the General Fund into Social Security when your General Fund is only $3 TRILLION - $3.5 TRILLION.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike02
1. It is NOT the fault of wealthy people that caused this budgetary fiscal mess. It is the fault of politicians on both sides that have grown government well beyond its constitutional limitations.
|
Politicians fall out of the sky and land in Washington?
No, Americans put them there, so you really can't blame the politicians.
In reality, your economic problems go much deeper than that.
When I was a secondary education major, I was a varsity assistant football coach for a Division I high school. I saw a very sad scenario repeated time and time again.
There was always a kid in the 8th Grade who was bigger, taller, stronger, faster and quicker than the other kids. And everyone loved him, and praised and lauded him, and showered him with attention and accolades, because, you know,
he was going to be a star.
And then something happened.
Over the Summer, the other kids all grew up and now there are kids who are bigger, taller, stronger, faster and quicker than the kid who
was going to be a star.
And now that kid is sitting on the bench, riding the pine, because he cannot compete any more.
He doesn't get any love, no praises or accolades and no one showers him with attention, because now there are other "winners" who are going to be a star.
And so he quickly becomes disinterested in his sport, because, well, you see, it's not easy any more since
he doesn't have a distinct physical advantage over others, and he's filled with resentment, and often "acts out."
That's America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike02
We live in a welfare-warfare state, and guess what, we can't afford it. You cannot tax your way out of this mess. We need major reform and major discussion on what role gov't should play in our daily lives. There is also a huge risk if we raise taxes -- increase in spending. The problem is spending, not tax rates.
|
That would be a good start, but it will take a lot more than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike02
2. Not all conservatives are "social" conservatives. Many conservatives/libertarians advocate small limited gov't and balanced budgets without touching on issues such as marriage or abortion. While social conservatives may also support balance budgets and small limited gov't, their primary agenda is on fundamentalist Christian values such as anti-same sex marriage and anti-abortion. There are also "social" liberals who may also be small gov't conservatives.
3. Your analogy of conservatives becoming like the "Sheriff of Nottingham" is immature for an intellectual debate on policy issues.
|
You can blame the media for blurring the distinction and then also blame the suckers who drink the Kool-Aid.
Many assume that if one is conservative, then one is also religious, and thus a religious conservative, when in fact there are many atheists who are quite conservative.
When the highest personal and corporate income tax bracket for federal taxes is 3% and the tax brackets for the States are 10%-35%, then America will be able to economically deal with many issues, but until then, it will be a long slow slide into the 2nd World.
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.
