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.
When are you guys going to wake up and realize that it's the republicans who love federal deficits and debt? When has the national debt ever shrunk on a republican president's watch? Never, that's when.
Bill Clinton ran a surplus 6 of 8 years and drastically paid down the federal debt. By the year 2016 we were set to be even steven with the house. At that point all income tax could have been ended. The Gov could have run on import/export tariffs and other revenues.
College tuition could have been free. People could have worked 32 hour work weeks and paid their expenses.
Republicans love debt. It gives them an excuse to cut benefits on the lower part of society. Oldest trick in the book, claim poverty and cut money to people you don't like.
Reagan is the Right Wing Idiots hero and he ran his entire program on a credit card. Remember his Star Wars plan of arming satellites in space? How many trillions did they waste on that? Jimmy Carter and other scientists tried to tell him it was a waste of money. All to pad his defense contractor friend's pockets. All of that went on the tab. And his smoke screen was the evil unions and his war against them.
Payroll taxes are not regressive given the funding formula.
Yes, they are. How the money is paid out has zero bearing on the fact that the payroll tax is regressive.
Quote:
The lowest contributors to SS benefit the most on a return basis.
And the next-largest beneficiaries are the people who fake disabilities to scam the system.
After that, the next-largest beneficiaries of the SS system are the rich people who are allowed to exempt their income out of the system altogether.
the people who get screwed are the middle class people who have to make up for the fact that the rich don't have to support the welfare state. These people are having to support the weight of the underclass all by themselves, which is a regressive scheme.
Quote:
There SS checks are higher than they would otherwise be for a similar non-subsidized annuity stream. Pure wealth distribution. Welfare.
Right, but it's still regressive. It takes from the middle class and gives to the poor, allowing the rich to opt out.
When are you guys going to wake up and realize that it's the republicans who love federal deficits and debt? When has the national debt ever shrunk on a republican president's watch? Never, that's when.
The Tea Party was out there protesting for lower spending. The Republicans had a battle with Obama over raising the debt limit and cutting spending. The Ryan plan has been said to have "draconian" cuts. Facts are facts.
Quote:
Bill Clinton ran a surplus 6 of 8 years and drastically paid down the federal debt.
Bill Clinton ran a deficit 8 of 8 years. The closest the budget came to even being balanced, much less having a surplus, was a 10 billion dollar deficit. The debt was 1.6 trillion dollars higher at the end of his administration than the beginning.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but facts are facts.
Quote:
By the year 2016 we were set to be even steven with the house. At that point all income tax could have been ended. The Gov could have run on import/export tariffs and other revenues.
College tuition could have been free. People could have worked 32 hour work weeks and paid their expenses.
Republicans love debt. It gives them an excuse to cut benefits on the lower part of society. Oldest trick in the book, claim poverty and cut money to people you don't like.
Obama has been running deficits between twice and triple the size of Bush. Facts are facts.
Payroll taxes are not regressive given the funding formula. The lowest contributors to SS benefit the most on a return basis. There SS checks are higher than they would otherwise be for a similar non-subsidized annuity stream. Pure wealth distribution. Welfare.
The benefit formula lasts only as long as you (and your eligible survivors) do. so the benefit formula is offset by actual longevity and survivorship rates - longevity and marriage rates are correlated with income and wealth. Conservatives in particular have noted that payroll taxes are a particularly bad deal for black men due to shorter lifespans and lower marriage rates.
So far, no one has put forth a logical attempt. All we've gotten so far is deflection and obfuscation. No one wants to admit that it's not logical to argue for the rich to "pay their fair share" when in fact 47% of American's aren't paying ANY federal income taxes.
As posted earlier, no, nobody can explain it to you. As seen above, you don't want an explanation, you only desire an admission that it's not logical to argue for the rich to "pay their fair share". You want to browbeat others into admitting that your position at the outset is the correct one. To you, anything less than such an admission is "deflecting" or "obtuse" regardless of any good points raised by others. You've categorically stated they are not good points because they run counter to your point.
What you personally think, doesn't make for logic as such discussions demand. You went back to the good old rhetoric that you must, for political and ideological reasons.
Actually my thoughts are fairly logical. The fact that you disagree makes no difference.
If you feel you are being treated unfairly, you can always take a job which pays minimum wage and then enjoy the bliss of tas free income.
Where did I say that I thought that I was being treated unfairly? I think the fairness issue cuts both ways - the rich should pay their "fair share" and the 30+% above poverty level not paying now should also pay something. What is so hard to understand about that?
$5480 taxable income * 10% federal income tax rate = $548 federal income tax.
You've made the assumption that the person in question doesn't qualify for other deductions and credits, most glaringly the Earned Income Tax credit, which was set up for those who make low to moderate incomes.
I knew there was reason to be skeptical of your claim.
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.
