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.
To help clarify the discussion for those reading but not participating, are you all on the same page in how you are accounting for Social Security and Medicare withholding?
Probably not, but these are already regressive taxes, so probably not what the coddlers of the rich are complaining over...
You see, the arguments become a bit tainted if Social Security is included in defining the tax payment base.
I don't know about tainted. Different, perhaps...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Social Security ultimately has a payback, and is heavily tilted (last I saw a decade ago) towards higher % of payback to lower earners.
It is moderately tilted in terms of replacing a percentage of pre-retirement income. A low-income worker will receive a higher percentage of his pre-retirement earnings in benefits than a higher-income worker, but the higher income worker would (at least typically) receive a larger dollar amount.
Considering that the rich do not collect on Social Security, all that does is sku the statistic even further. They are forced to pay more taxes into a "pot" with no chance of ever collecting it back, its an added tax burden with no benefit.
If they don't collect, it is only because they are too lazy or otherwise don;t feel it's worth their while to file for the benefits they have qualified for. Regardless of income level, if one has accrued at least 40 quarters of work in an SS-covered position, one is eligible for benefits.
if Sag is going to sit here and claim that those who make less, actually pay more in taxes, it becomes an issue, but you are correct, it adds nothing to the "taxed to death" argument. Everyone is being taxed to death who actually pays taxes..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
That hasn't been claimed.
Actually it was claimed, by you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
I see. Bush hasn't gone far enough with his tax cuts for the rich. We need more and more such relief for the rich until the poor end up paying a HIGHER percentage of their incomes in taxes than the rich do. Yes, that sounds "fair" alright...
WRONG.. That would only be correct if there is the exact same number of people at the top as the bottom, when in fact there clearly isnt.. (or we'd have more billionaires). A correct equation to get the average would be (those at the bottom, divided by the adjusted gross income, multiplied by number of those at the bottom.. ) / (those at the top, divided by their adjusted gross income, multiplied by the number of those at the bottom). The statistic is even further sku'd because to be 100% accurate, you'd really need to do a division based upon every dollar that someone makes in the mid range, and divide by the number of people. Just taking the bottom, and the top, is not valid, without considering into the equation that there are more at the bottom, and as you reach the top, the number gets smaller.
Sheesh! Believe it or not, there are the same number of people in the top 1% of income earners as there are in the bottom 1% of income earners, but that concept doesn't even enter into it. The issue here is a failure to understand the difference between marginal and average tax rates. The marginal rate is what you will pay on your next dollar of income. The average rate is your total tax (i.e., typically the bottom line on page-2 of your 1040) divided by your total AGI (i.e., typically the top line on page-2 of your 1040).
Seems to me that Libertyandjusticeforall is calling for Liberty for me and injustice to the rest of you. Like the bully in the playpen - all my toys are mine and so are all of your toys. My money is mine! Mine! Mine!
He, and, for that matter, Greatday, would be wonderfully unhappy in the world I would like to create. I think they would work even harder to acquire as much as they could regardless of the difficulty or the tax code. Obsessions are like that and Capitalism is an obsession. Most of us, like the first 85%, would be rather pleased.
Sheesh! Believe it or not, there are the same number of people in the top 1% of income earners as there are in the bottom 1% of income earners, but that concept doesn't even enter into it. The issue here is a failure to understand the difference between marginal and average tax rates. The marginal rate is what you will pay on your next dollar of income. The average rate is your total tax (i.e., typically the bottom line on page-2 of your 1040) divided by your total AGI (i.e., typically the top line on page-2 of your 1040).
The tax rate is based upon an income range.. Not income.
The top tax braket are those who earn $336,500 and up, which is the tax range that we are talking about, unless your claiming that those in the lower tax bracket, (yearly income under $7,550) pay the same in taxes then the rich, your argument is flawed..
You also changed the argument (again), because you went from "The MARGINAL tax rate at $340K would have been 35% in 2005. The AVERAGE tax rate is total tax (the bottom line) divided by adjusted gross income (the top line). The average tax rate falling on the top 1% in 2005 was 21.8%, or 21.8 cents on the dollar."
To discussing the poorest 1% of income earners.. What does the poorest 1% of income earners (this thread) have to do with those who earn $340,000 a year, (your previous thread)?
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.
