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.
That is the point - it is an answer to your question. You damage a large company in global competition enough and it goes out of business and tens of thousands lose jobs or Obama throws over $100,000,000,000.00 of tax payer money at it.
.
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).
I just mailed my tax payment out. I don't make a super high income and I have a very experienced accountant. My effective Federal tax rate + payroll taxes would put me in the 90-95% income bracket on that chart. I do not make more than 90-95% of people out there.
When people say that the rich pay a far greater percent of their income in taxes, that is in the context of income taxes and proposals to change the income tax system so that the rich pay their fair share. The rich pay more than their fair share in income taxes. Other taxes are not levied on income, they are levied on sales, usage, etc. so I believe these should be counted as a percentage of what they are taxing rather than on income. However, considered as a percentage of income they are for the most part regressive, considering the average person's habits in each income bracket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikBEggs
Flat taxes are regressive, unless paired with an EITC.
Flat income taxes by definition are proportional, seeing as every person pays the same percentage of their income; you could argue that the impact on the poor would be more severe given a proportional tax, but that's an argument for a progressive tax system where the poor pay a smaller percentage of their income. Anyway, if you pair a flat tax rate with exempting the first $25 000 or so from taxation, it renders that whole issue moot while adding very little complexity to the system. This is the opposite of the payroll tax system, which only taxes the first $110 000 or so. Both are proportional taxes on the income they are taxing, but on the whole the former is progressive and the latter is regressive.
This is the opposite of the payroll tax system, which only taxes the first $110 000 or so. Both are proportional taxes on the income they are taxing, but on the whole the former is progressive and the latter is regressive.
No. Payroll taxes vs. benefits received are progressive. Currently, everyone but the low-income will lose money on SS.
And the Medicare tax applies no matter how high one's wages are. So, those $1,000,000 wage earners are going to be paying a hell of a lot more Medicare tax than will the $50,000 earner, but both will get the same benefits when eligible to receive them.
I know, you all looked at the title, and said "I am going to go into this thread and tear into this, this guys wrong. We ALL know the rich pay more!"
But thats because the debate is all about cherry picking data. We look at federal taxes-but exclude social security which is a 6.3%+6.3% tax....paid for by the working poor. But ONLY on the first 112K of income. The average .1%er has it as a rounding error. Heck as a % of my income I paid more in social security then Romney paid in federal....but then again my federal rate was ALSO higher then his....
But wait...what about state taxes? Turns out thats paid at a 5.6% rate by the average .1%er....and 11% for the poor folks.
So all this screaming about the federal rate, conveniently ignores the other taxes. Why is that? hmmmmm
edit-To clarify the title, twice as much as a % of their income.
1. Social security BENEFITS are capped. Hence the comparison of %'s is utterly ridiculous. Additionally, there is a decreasing effectiveness of benefit but that's more complicated to explain and since you missed the easy one I'm not going to bother with more advanced concepts.
2. Your 5.6% and 11% numbers are not surprisingly not cited. You either botched the numbers badly are are trying to factor in things like sales tax which would be yet another bad use of math in either case.
In short, I perform financial and mathematical analysis for a living....for well over 20 years now. I can sincerely tell you that your analysis is what I'd imagine it would be like to watch Mike Tyson play in a competitive Scrabble tournament. "What do you me ludicrosishness ain't a word? That's unbelivablocity!"
And the Medicare tax applies no matter how high one's wages are. So, those $1,000,000 wage earners are going to be paying a hell of a lot more Medicare tax than will the $50,000 earner, but both will get the same benefits when eligible to receive them.
Due to SS having components related to catastrophic things like survivor benefits and so forth....yeah, most people won't "profit" from insurance.
Then again, in the case of MOST insurance only a few wind up collecting more than they paid in.
Just look at homeowners insurance. Do you consider it a ripoff because maybe 5% of the purchasers get more back than they paid in because thier home burned to the ground or a neighbor kid got killed by their dog etc? Wow, they sure were lucky!
Due to SS having components related to catastrophic things like survivor benefits and so forth....yeah, most people won't "profit" from insurance.
Then again, in the case of MOST insurance only a few wind up collecting more than they paid in.
Just look at homeowners insurance. Do you consider it a ripoff because maybe 5% of the purchasers get more back than they paid in because thier home burned to the ground or a neighbor kid got killed by their dog etc? Wow, they sure were lucky!
I agree. I'm just correcting the false impression previously stated that payroll taxes were regressive. They are not. SS benefits are progressively structured so that lower income earners get a higher return on their SS taxes (ins. premiums) than everyone else. The SSA admits such. Medicare is progressive because some earners pay MUCH higher taxes (ins. premiums) than others, only to receive the exact same benefits as everyone else.
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.
