My semantics? YOU are the one who implied that they were not earning their income that, rather, they "received" it. Why is that the only reasonable way? As I pointed out to you, the progressive nature of the income tax has ranged from slight to mighty. Most things in life are regressive. President Obama and I pay the same $2.95 for a hot dog... and we get the same hot dog. But he is much wealthier than I am... What benefits do people that earn in excess of $105,000 get from SS? I believe the answer is nothing and that is what they are not taxed on that excess income... so is it really regressive as you announce? See above. I have deflected nothing. I have been slicing through your syntactical jungle. Man, oh man. I was responding to something you had posted and you accuse ME of bringing up the topic... Equal tax for equal benefit. That's not regressive. Agree. I was just illustrating the folly. I've ignored nothing. I just don't accept your operational assumptions because I consider them to be deceptive. but they get no benefit because SS income is capped so the taxable income is capped. I was not referring to me. I was referencing your demonizing Republicans as patently greedy. You announced the problem is fixed. I don't think this is a widely held opinion... http://www.redstate.com/clarkbarrow/2012/07/24/the-true-cost-of-welfare/
I implied no such thing, you inferred incorrectly. Because pure dollar amounts don't tell the whole story. That is why, when you want to compare the performance of two companies, you use ratios and not merely revenues or dollars of profit. Yes, and that is one of the problems that the income tax was designed to overcome. Yes, it is. SS benefits are based on income. See above. You continue to deflect rather than address the point that the income tax was made progressive because all other taxes are regressive. I'm sorry you don't have an answer for that plain fact, but your inability to address the fact doesn't make it any less factual. I just reviewed the page that is available on the edit screen and didn't see where I brought up abortion in this thread. The wealthy enjoy far more of the benefits of American society than do the poor and middle classes. Again, I'm sorry you can't understand this plain fact, but it is factual. By creating a straw man rather than debating honestly, got it. Considering the entire context of taxation is "deceptive?" Again you show your Republican penchant for ignoring context in favor of deceptive claims. It is one example of the regressive nature of all taxes other than the income tax. What would you call lobbying to get taxes reduced even in the face of massive deficits and debt, even while taxes are at historically low levels and while the wealthy pay lower percentages of their income under a nominally progressive income tax? Greedy is a very accurate word. I announced that the problem isn't as big as your claims would lead one to believe. I also believe that the biggest problem with Welfare, the fact that one could collect a check without doing any work at all, was mostly addressed by the Clinton welfare reform. [/QUOTE] http://www.redstate.com/clarkbarrow/2012/07/24/the-true-cost-of-welfare/[/QUOTE] Nice opinion piece, but it talks about total "welfare" spending as $900 billion per year. The only way that could be accurate is if you include the bulk of Social Security recipients as "on welfare," which is the height of intellectual dishonesty. That piece does not do an honest accounting of welfare spending, nor does it speak to the point I was asking about, which is how many people are collecting checks without having to do anything at all. By the way, I spoke with the person who wrote the piece you cited regarding inter-generational welfare "dynasties" and he confirmed that the piece did not say anything about the numbers of people on welfare, merely that a person who is on welfare tends to pass on an attitude that welfare is no big deal to their dependents. This is the biggest reason that I support welfare work requirements of the type that Clinton instituted and would even support strengthening them.
1. Pure dollar amounts will tell us whether we are paying more for the very same benefit. 2. Why should someone be expected to pay SS taxes on income that is above the limit of available benefits (i.e. $105,000) returned? 3. Forbes says $900 Billion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-expanding-welfare-empire/ "The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)." 4. Pointing up folly is debating honestly... and you didn't even get it! I'll see if there is more I want to counter later....
Pure dollar amounts only give a distorted view of the situation and you know it. Why is it that you must distort in order to have a point? To make sure that Social Security is viable for all of society. If you are calling the elderly "welfare recipients," I can't think of a clearer way to point out the lack of limits you have to distorting the truth. Making up a straw man to argue against in order to avoid the points being made is a logical fallacy. Apparently, you don't get it. As shown above and throughout the last few pages, you don't have the ability to counter, just deflect, avoid, and create straw men.
We'll just never agree. I consider dollar amounts the more accurate way to measure if fair price is paid, i.e. your hot dog and mine are both $2.95. You want yours to be $2.95 and mine to be $8.95..... So it is out-and-out re-distribution of wealth and an obligation? As I read the article, there is only one mention of a program devoted to the elderly and it is a minor nutrition program. Did I miss one? If so, point it out, please. It was a comment not a straw man (chuckle).... and it DID illustrate with sarcasm the point I was making rather than avoiding it. Oh please!
You are talking about two different things. Measuring the price of a hot dog is best done with pure dollars, taxes are best measured as a percentage of income. We will never agree because you insist on using a distorted measure of taxes because that is the only way that your idiotic point holds any water at all. All taxes are redistribution and are also obligations. Every tax except the income tax for high wage earners redistribute from the poor and middle classes to the wealthy. For investment income earners, this is also the case. I guess you are perfectly OK with increasing redistribution to the rich from the middle class, but i believe that is one of the reasons our country is in trouble. The article claimed $900 billion in "welfare payments" and the only way to arrive at that number is to include SS disbursements. Again, if you insist on referring to SS recipients as receiving "welfare," your views are so distorted that you might as well be living in the Hall of Mirrors at your local carnival. It was a straw man that you could knock down with sarcasm instead of debating with salient points, facts, and evidence. Yes, please figure out how to debate honestly rather than using logical fallacies, distortions, and idiotic GOP talking points.
So, you say I brought up the topic in post 30, but you weren't able to see all the way back to... Post #29 Hilarious.
I didn't say you "started" it; I just said that I didn't. Remember, you told me not to bring abortion into the discussion... I just proved that you did before I did because my post was a response to yours. Talk about hilarious.
Everyone pays the same percentage of the maximum limit for SS. Okay so far. Your wanting high wage-earners to pay extra taxes on money that derives them no benefit is not a distorted measure. You have a distorted view of your hands on their money. Not sure what you're driving at here. Are sales taxes redistributions as well? Some re-distribution is fine and well but where is the tipping point? What has the middle class ever re-distributed to the rich? Romney's "lame" 14% adjusted federal tax rate was several million dollars. What did Romney's tax dollars not provide for him that someone else's was needed to provide? I saw nothing on there about SS disbursements. I'll look for a third time. I asked you to point it up but you just make another vague charge.... are you talking about SS disability or retirees? It was a salient point. PRICELESS
Well, I have for one have enjoyed how kindly Democrats have treated Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Clarence Thomas, the Tea Party, and of course - McChimpy Bu*s*Hitler. Keep rocking that New Civility, Donkeys!
My hands on their money? Wow, I love how bad y'all unintentionally make yourselves look with statements like that. Of course, you can't see or won't acknowledge that payroll taxes, both SS and Medicare, are regressive, as are most of the other ways that Americans are taxed, which is one of the main reasons that the income tax was made progressive. It has gotten drastically less so over the last 30 years and those reduced revenues have led to dramatically higher deficits and debt, lower taxes for the wealthy, and higher taxes for the middle and lower classes. Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society, as taxes have been lowered, so has our civilization. Yes, all taxation amounts to redistributing wealth and a higher percentage of a middle class person's income goes to sales tax than a rich person pays. The same thing goes for every single tax except the income tax, at least as it was designed. The Bush tax cuts ended that for the richest in our society, which has led to them having fatter bank accounts while the rest of us have suffered through the worst economy since the Great Depression. The tipping point was when Bush cut the capital gains tax to 15%. The eye roll comes from the GOP asking for yet MORE tax cuts on top of the largess they have already removed from the Treasury over the last 30 years. A doctor making $400k per year pays 35% of that income in tax, for an effective tax rate of around 27%, while Romney pays less than 14%. Even people with FAR lower incomes than that pay a higher percentage than Romney, which is the wrong way for a nominally progressive income tax to work. That is redistributing the wealth of the middle class to the people with a particular KIND of income, investment income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png Please point out the $900 billion in "welfare" without including non-disability SS disbursements. It was a straw man, nothing else. Your blinders have cost you and America a pretty penny, that's for sure.
Everthing I write is intentional. Frankly, everyone should pay a little more-- eveny if it is just a symbolic amount, maybe a tad more, to solve this crunch. You are just being greedy with someone else's money! Let us know when you are voluntarily paying more tax than you have to. The top marginal tax rate has been in the 30% range or lower since 1987... which include those halcyon days of the Clinton Era. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213 Romney paid far more than the average 14%er paid. Exactly what is flowing to him? His outflow is re-directing traffic!
I completely agree, I would be all for doing away with the entirety of the Bush tax cuts in order to make that happen. No, I am incensed at the greed of the wealthy. Greed is one of the deadly sins and has brought this country to its knees, fiscally. It is about time we stop rewarding greed in favor of rewarding work, IMO. Voluntary payments will not solve the budget issue, only aggregated higher tax payments from everyone will contribute the higher revenues that we will need to pair with spending cuts to eliminate the deficit. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? The top marginal tax rate right now is 35% and under Clinton it was slightly over 39%. http://taxfoundation.org/article/us...-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets The redistribution is going from people who pay a higher tax rate (doctors, lawyers, basically anyone making over $100,000 in wage income) to people like him, who pay lower tax rates for everything. That is the net effect of a lower effective income tax rate.
The same way Mathloom and ATW fights end. The same way kids stop fighting- they get distracted by something else.
I said "30% range" meaning "in the 30s." It was about 31% when he took office and ended at 39%. That's what my easier-to-read )) tax table said. That's just not that far off of 35% is it? Huh? He put in a ****load of money... MILLIONS! Who is picking up HIS tab or, rather, who is redistributing to Romney?
Out of curiosity, why do you think long term investment income is taxed at lower rates than earned income?
Uh, there's all kinds of information out there how Romney and Bain bought companies with borrowed money, loaded them up with debt, borrowed money to provide dividends to stockholders, and then declared bankruptcy. Romney redistributed the conservative way, by laying people off and scamming government. If you spent less time getting your news from Facebook then you'd probably be aware.
