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.
Its of scarborough on msnbc you know one of your own. That should make him credible to you a former GOP congressman.
MSNBC is signing his check. Maybe when when Matthews leg stops tingeling and corporate parent GE gets their "thank you" from the Democrats for helping to throw the election, MSNBC will become a credibe news source. But for right now, buy GE!
Classic red herring argument. No one, and I mean no one, in the US pays nothing. Republicans like to pretend that the income tax is the only tax but in fact for most Americans, like 3 out of 4 Americans, their greatest tax burden isn't income taxes but instead is payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are also a horribly regressive tax because after $100,000 in income you stop paying pay roll taxes that means people making less then $100,000 per year pay those taxes on 100% of their income while the wealthy pay it only on a portion, often a small portion, of their income.
Giving the middle class a tax cut really is the best thing we can do for the economy because they're the most likely to spend it and thus stimulate new economic activity while, as we have repeatedly seen in the past, tax cuts for millionaires normally get saved often in foreign accounts so that doesn't stimulate much new economic activity here in the US.
Your argument is flawed: payroll "taxes", as you refer to them, were really not designed to be a tax system, but rather an insurance system for the benefit of the "taxpayer". Since your benefits are tied directly to your contributions, one could argue it is not tax, but a benefit plan. The reason the rates are capped is that the benefits are capped also. The excess funds are used to redistribute benefits to other members of the insurance pool. While Social Security is technically not a benefit plan, it attempts to emulate one. In recent years, it began sending out statements to participants.
Numerous studies have attempted to impute or derive the return on investment of payroll tax contributions. Not surprisingly, the results are all the same: skewed in favor of the poor. The lowest income earners have the highest return on their "investment." For example, a worker with average annual wages of $30,000 in constant dollars would earn over 11% on his "investment", as opposed to a mere 1.2% for a $90,000 worker. The reason Democrats do not want privatization of Social Security becomes clear: the average ROI in the stock market is less than 8%, with periods of substantial volatility. SS is paying some workers an 11% ROI with NO volatility, as it uses the contributions and assets of the wealthy to smooth the curve, while increasing benefits to the poorer participants.
If you met with a financial advisor, and he laid out a new retirement plan to you, identical to Social Security, with all of its nuances disclosed in full, only the poorest (or altruistic) Americans would invest. Madoff is locked in his penthouse right now for offering an identical plan to his investors. A Ponzi scheme is no more legal simply because Uncle Sam is in control of it.
To address your comment, the great payroll tax "burden" you refer to is actually the best investment most Americans will ever make. It offers an ROI greater than market by utilizing the plan assets of others to manipulate performance of the plan in whole, ensuring that the smallest contributers earn a disproportionate return relative to their investment.
And you wonder why some Americans are so angry at the Democrats....
Numerous studies have attempted to impute or derive the return on investment of payroll tax contributions. Not surprisingly, the results are all the same: skewed in favor of the poor. The lowest income earners have the highest return on their "investment."
No one is making an "investment" in Social Security. Everyone is paying the insurance premiums that are necessary to produce the revenue stream from which policy benefits will be paid. Premiums are highly regressive. Benefit schedules are mildly progressive.
Of course, the fact that any part of it is progressive angers right-wingers, but the real reason right-wingers hate Social Security is that is has been a spectacularly successful program that is associated with liberals. The well-being of generations of survivors, the disabled, and the elderly means nothing to them in comparison to their outrage that liberals continue to be credited with having created and defended Social Security for seven decades and more. That's just how the right-wing thinks...
Last edited by saganista; 02-11-2009 at 08:56 AM..
If everyone paid as much as those so called wealthy, this country would be sitting on a $700 trillion stock pile of cash. If you want to blame someone, how about the 50% of the population that pays NO income taxes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jons99
Not BS at all, if those paying no income tax or actually recieving a handout were forced to start paying, we wouldn't be in the position we are. Instead or worrying about the guy paying $100K a year in income taxes, why not complain about the person paying NOTHING?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jons99
According to factcheck.org, about 38% of the families that file a return have either zero or a negative tax liability.
Really, how about a link to this 50% figure?
It’s been a right-wing talking point for some time. That doesn’t make it true.
Funny how you change the figure in a few posts.
The "half of Americans pay no income tax" fraud | Jay Bookman | ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/10/07/the_half_of_americans_pay_no_i.html - broken link)
The Tax Foundation - Countdown to Tax Reform, Part II: Taxpayers and Non-Payers Tax Foundation economists estimate that in 2004, some 42.5 million Americans (one-third of all filers) filed a tax return but had no tax liability after taking advantage of their credits and deductions. Big difference between 50% and 33%.
From the link: Broadly speaking, the 42.5 million non-payers are:
• Low-income: 97 percent earn less than $40,000 annually;
• Young: 36 percent are younger than age 25 and 56 percent are younger than age 35;
• Women and Unmarried: 54 percent are single women or female-headed households;
• Part-Time Workers: 42 percent work part-time while just 20 percent work full-time but less than 50 weeks a year;
• Benefit from Tax Credits: 34 percent claim the EITC while 50 percent claim the child credit.
I’m game for getting rid of child credits.
Why get a credit when you use more resources.
______________
What about the percentage of corporate America that pays no taxes?
MSNBC is signing his check. Maybe when when Matthews leg stops tingeling and corporate parent GE gets their "thank you" from the Democrats for helping to throw the election, MSNBC will become a credibe news source. But for right now, buy GE!
He reported the results of a Gallup poll, he didnt make it up.
Lookng at Fox Noise's site, I dont see any mention of that Gallup poll.
I do see these right up top:
Doubts? Bank On It
URGENT: Bank execs face questions from Congress about how they used over $160B in taxpayers' money
• Race to the Finish Over 'Spendulus' | 1ST 100 DAYS
• FOX FORUM: Still Time to Kill the 'Spendulus'
• Sin City Mayor to President Obama: Apologize
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.
