The working poor pay more then twice as much in taxes as the rich (companies, New York)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

If we raise taxes on corporations do the consumers and workers essentially pay the vast majority of the tax?

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Excellent point! Many of us have tried to explain this to them, but the brainwashing has been quite severe. For some reason, they inexplicably believe that magically somehow businesses don't factor their expenses into employee salaries and/or prices.

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

ALL taxes are paid by individuals.

Originally Posted by le roi

depends on the type of good/service you're talking about.

No, it does not. Please, you just got stomped on by three posters. You're out of your league here.

Originally Posted by le roi

again, how companies respond to increasing costs all goes back to the level of competition in that industry.

Wrong, again. If you no have no competition, but your costs exceed revenues, then you are bankrupt.

Originally Posted by le roi

something more globally competitive -- we'll say auto manufacturing -- the market cannot bear higher prices, so you'd be more likely to see those costs absorbed by shareholders.

The Market? Which one?

There are several thousand auto markets globally.

There are over 1,000 auto markets in the US.....or did you think everyone pays the same price?

Like I said, you're way out of your league here.

California State requires special emission control standards that none of the other 49 States require. For that reason, cars in California cost $3,000 to $8,000 more than cars in other US Markets.

Obviously, you have no understanding of Inflation. Cost-Inflation is Inflation caused by the artificial inflation of costs, usually by government through taxes or regulations, but sometimes through special interest groups, like the American Hospital Association.

For example, in 1933, the American Hospital Association began dictating to member-hospitals the minimum rates to be charged for health insurance premiums. These minimums were in excess of Free Market rates, resulting in people being forced through monopolistic practices to pay more for health insurance than it really costs.

If you know the history of US healthcare --- and you don't --- then you also know that hospitals sold health insurance, not insurance companies, for this reason:

"...the opportunities for fraud [in health insurance] upset all statistical calculations ... Health and sickness are vague terms open to endless construction. Death is clearly defined, but to say what shall constitute such loss of health as will justify insurance compensation is no easy task."

Source: Insurance Monitor July 1919, vol. 67(7), page 38

"Federal" government regulations create Cost-Inflation driving up the cost of medical care, plus the cost of health plan coverage, which artificially inflates the total cost of healthcare.

And then you have State government regulations which create Cost-Inflation and artificially inflates the cost of health plan coverage.

Gasoline prices are the product of artificially inflated costs caused by government regulations.

Anyway, the point is that all costs are passed onto either consumers, or taxpayers, or both.

Costing...

Mircea

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

Corporate taxation is a wonderful scheme for politicians to use to divert attention away from what is really happening.

Yep, its what we are seeing now. How many left wing kooks run around shouting that taxes have been cut under obama, while ignoring others which have been raised.

Ironically, these very same kooks who make the claims, are the very ones who say lower taxes dont increase revenues, while then jumping on the bandwagon that revenues have been increased.

Their non stop flip flopping is humorous.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

That's what I'd like to know. Why tax at all if they can simply print money to fund expenditures?

Because they cannot "simply print money."

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

That's why an EITC is needed, or an exemption.

Well, then by your own admission a Flat Tax is unfair, because if it was fair, then Basic Income vis-a-vis the EITC would not be needed.

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

No. Payroll taxes vs. benefits received are progressive. Currently, everyone but the low-income will lose money on SS.

Social Security a losing deal for most workers

I don't even have to read the article to know it's based on fallacies.

Social Security is an insurance program. It is not a savings program or a retirement program or an investment program.

42 USC § 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments


(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

I highlighted the relevant parts.

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

Why so much discrimination against the young single-person?

The Silent Generation was slammed with 520% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.

Have you been hit with a 520% FICA payroll tax increase?

No, you haven't.

The Boomers suffered a 71% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.

Have you been hit with a 71% FICA payroll tax increase?

No, you haven't.

What have you had? Let me refresh your memory --- you got a 2% rebate.

The FICA payroll needs to be increased to 9.2% no later than December 2016, to keep it solvent through at least 2035. That would be a measly 48% increase.

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

I just don't see how that document is accurate.

Gosh, why am I not even remotely surprised.

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

OMG STOP with this tax payer money.

Tax payer money is all BS. When the government bails out corporations or state / local governments, the money is printed. Taxpayers don't fund a cent of it. All government expenditures are printed money. Bailouts especially because that printed money ends up in bank vaults clearing up balance sheets that were left in the red. It has literally no effect on the money being circulated (or the taxpayers you claim it came from).

You have no idea what you're talking about.

It smells like you've been haunting economicbargbagcollapse.com.

You don't even know what "printed money" is.

When you are graduated from high school, why don't you take a few economics courses in money creation and get back to us.

Originally Posted by wutitiz

When Social Security was signed into law by FDR, he specifically denied that the FICA payments could be called "taxes." Instead he wanted them to be called 'contributions' as in an insurance plan. Hence the cap at 112K, and the lack of means testing.

Of course it could reasonably be argued that he was either wrong or disingenuous, that these are in fact taxes. But the fact that the person who created the system insisted that they were not taxes is a reasonable reason for not accounting for them as taxes.

Okay. Good job. They made an end run around the Constitution. That's not speculation or conjecture, it's actual government documents, including letters and congressional hearings and testimony.

If you are interested in researching -- and I know you like to stay on top of your game -- the legal issue is Constitutional Federalism.

The basic idea is that the powers of the federal government are limited to only those powers expressly defined in the Constitution, and that it is the States who define the limitations of powers in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

From its inception through the FDR Administration, the Supreme Court was very federalist, erring on the side of the States. In the post-Civil War Era, the Court -- rather oddly -- shifted even further toward States' rights.

I don't know what to say about that. You just had a civil war over States' Rights, and now the Supreme Court is all for States' Rights? In my view, that is a reaction to the civil war, and indicates that the major sentiment of many is that Lincoln over-stepped his bounds and authority.

The Court had shot down most of FDR's legislation, thus the need for FDR to threaten and intimidate the Court by attempting to expand the number of justices, and by threatening and intimidating individual justices on the Court, so that he could pack it with jurists who would do what he wanted --- which defeats the whole Checks & Balance System.

Constitutionally...

Mircea

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Social Security is an insurance program. It is not a savings program or a retirement program or an investment program.

Exactly. Somehow, there are many posters (cough... lefties) insisting it's an entitlement which one has not earned, like welfare. They're ignoring the fact that while generations past did indeed receive more SS benefits than they paid into the system, such is no longer true except for low-income earners, by the SSA's own admission.

The Boomers suffered a 71% FICA tax increase to make sure Social Security would be there for them.

Have you been hit with a 71% FICA payroll tax increase?

No, you haven't.

I'm a Boomer. I got hit.

[HappyTexan]

The government doesn't call them the "working poor" anymore folks.
They are now the "struggling middle class".
Family income of $15K (below FPL mind you) are members of the "struggling middle class".
And near 30% of this "struggling middle class" are on SNAP and other government programs.


Don't you see what they are doing here ?
Turning the US into a 2 class system.

2013 "study" on the Middle class.
http://www.hamiltonproject.org/paper...-middle_class/

[Mathguy]

Can we re-title the thread.....Mircea vs. posters with no clue?

[Opin_Yunated]

Originally Posted by Mircea

You have no idea what you're talking about.

It smells like you've been haunting economicbargbagcollapse.com.

You don't even know what "printed money" is.

When you are graduated from high school, why don't you take a few economics courses in money creation and get back to us.

Ha! Feel free to provide counter-evidence.

The government prints the money. Specifically, electronically by crediting it.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Can we re-title the thread.....Mircea vs. posters with no clue?

He does kick ass, doesn't he???

[petch751]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

The government doesn't call them the "working poor" anymore folks.
They are now the "struggling middle class". Family income of $15K (below FPL mind you) are members of the "struggling middle class". And near 30% of this "struggling middle class" are on SNAP and other government programs.

Don't you see what they are doing here? Turning the US into a 2 class system.

2013 "study" on the Middle class.
A Dozen Facts about America

Obama said he believes in “Big Unions, Big Businesses, and Big Government—all controlled from the top. Control from the top means he needs to destroy small business therefor destroying the middle class.”



Destroying The Middle Class By Destroying Small Business:
Traditionally small businesses have provided 80% of the jobs. Small businesses owners, and the people they hire to work in their businesses generally compose most of the Middle Class in America. From “Obama’s” perspective, step #1 is to destroy those small businesses.

Anyone who understands taxation knows that government uses the tax code to incentivize the American people to do what the government wants. Under Obama small business owners have zero motivation or incentive for expanding their business, if they wanted to they wouldn’t be able to.

Seek to destroy the Middle Class is through raising taxes on the so-called wealthy individuals. “Obama” has called for raising taxes on the so-called 1%. That is to tax the smithereens out of all individuals even though they are already paying much more than their “fair share.

Look at Obamacare and those “taxes” (or “penalties”) on companies that do not comply with providing the same level of insurance as the large concerns do are set to skyrocket. This is going to force thousands of smaller companies to go out of business. There are at least 21 other hidden taxes embedded in Obamacare all designed to inflict harm upon the small businesses.

americadeathwatch.com/obamas-plan-to-kill-the-middle-class.php

[le roi]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Can we re-title the thread.....Mircea vs. posters with no clue?

Originally Posted by Driller1

He does kick ass, doesn't he???

it's just verbal diarrhea ... i don't think he even comprehends the posts he responds to.

if you look at his points ... they make no sense. he was just telling me that there is no global market for automobiles, for example. apparently he wants to get into an argument about the definition of the word "market."

then he went on to confuse "increased costs" with "costs exceeding revenue," as if ANY increase in a company's costs will AUTOMATICALLY exceed its revenues.

then he went on to confuse "costs" with "costs mandated by government", as if the ONLY way costs can increase is through government interference.

then he spent 3 paragraphs rambling on about ... healthcare costs. (as if he was debunking something i'd said about healthcare costs. )

on another post he was saying it was impossible for the u.s. government to create its own currency. y'all believe that too?