Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
 ·Millenicom
| reply to openbox9
 Forty percent pay no taxes because they do not have any income. They do not have any income because their jobs have been sent overseas on a slow boat to China and are living in poverty.
It was just brought to my attention, on a talk show, that all employed persons pay a 15% payroll tax until they have earned over 100,000.00 Then they stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax is regressive. The two percenters pay a smaller portion of their income in payroll taxes than 98% of Americans.
Do you want to allow Americas wealthiest 2% to keep their tax cut so that they can buy another yacht, Rolls Royce or a home theater for their Twenty Million Dollar Mansion while your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels. The same weasels are screwing consumers on communications services by not disclosing the true cost of their services when they quote prices. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Don't forget how much interest these super wealthy earn off shore where it cannot be taxed by the US Government.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to Mr Matt
the 15% payroll tax is for Social Security and what, Medicare? its actually split 50/50 between the employer and employee but if you dare to be self-employed you will indeed pay the 15% all by yourself....
and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to Kearnstd
yeah, steal their money...Get 'em, Get 'em.... |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt: It was just brought to my attention, on a talk show, that all employed persons pay a 15% payroll tax until they have earned over 100,000.00 Then they stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax is regressive. I like a lot of what you've said. But, you're not describing the above accurately.
I believe you're referring to Social Security, which is (technically) an insurance premium (Google for "FICA" which is called "insurance.").
Although the "premium" stops at $100k of income, it is very far from "regressive."
Go here and download the PDF (top-right corner). Print it, and "figure" your Social Security benefit by hand.
You'll see:
• The first 90% of your monthly benefit comes from the first $700 of monthly income.
• The next $3800 in monthly income contributes just 32% to your monthly benefit.
• The next $4000 in monthly income contributes just 12% yo your monthly benefit.
It stops there because earners didn't pay "premiums" on incomes above that level.
So, as you see, on the receiving side, it's significantly progressive. People who earned more, paid more, and didn't receive a proportional benefit.
Maybe it should be more progressive. Maybe the "disability" component of Social Security should be removed and treated like the welfare program it is. Maybe Social Security "retirement" benefits treated more like an annuity (real insurance).
But, it's misleading to focus on the 15% (employer/employee) "contribution" as a flat (regressive) tax without revealing how that 15% is distributed when a "claim" is filed. We'll never have thoughtful reform if we don't understand what it is we're reforming. (Like the other side who mislead people by saying it's a savings account, and they can do better with private savings.). |
|
Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:the 15% payroll tax is for Social Security and what, Medicare? its actually split 50/50 between the employer and employee but if you dare to be self-employed you will indeed pay the 15% all by yourself.... and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT by lying to the other 98% of the populace and decieved them. -- Fixed for you  |
|
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels. That's the funniest thing I've read online today. Help me! I got tricked into buying a house! It's not my fault! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:Forty percent pay no taxes because they do not have any income. Sure they don't. They more likely don't have any income above a certain threshold based on our screwed up tax code.said by Mr Matt:that all employed persons pay a 15% payroll tax until they have earned over 100,000.00 Which tax are you specifically referring to? Medicare? Social Security? The withhold rates are 1.45% and 6.2% respectively. The Social Security tax tops out at $106.8K of income in 2010. Of course, the benefit from the program is capped as well. So, not really regressive considering the benefit is capped.
Feel free to read more if you're interested: »www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdfsaid by Mr Matt:Do you want to allow Americas wealthiest 2% to keep their tax cut I think as a society we pay too many taxes as it is, so yes, I believe the tax cuts should stand for everyone.said by Mr Matt:while your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels. Wow. What a distorted understanding of reality. If anyone did the tricking it was our government that wrongly suggested that everyone should own a home and used its mortgage arms of Fannie and Freddie to attempt to make it a reality.said by Mr Matt:The same weasels are screwing consumers on communications services by not disclosing the true cost of their services when they quote prices. Huh? What Wall Street weasels are screwing consumers on communications services? |
|
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:yeah, steal their money...Get 'em, Get 'em.... Hyperbole. No one said anything about stealing anything. Taxes are levied and assessed, and paid by all. No thieving necessary.
Everyone pays some form of tax. Even welfare and unemployment are taxed. My Navy retirement is taxed. Everyone pays sales tax, gasoline tax, various excise taxes, etc. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to footballdude
said by footballdude:said by Mr Matt:your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels. That's the funniest thing I've read online today. Help me! I got tricked into buying a house! It's not my fault! Technically, the same thing could be said for Bernie Madhoff's victims. They should have known above-market yields don't occur without above-market risks.
The problem during the real-estate bubble was cash poured into mortgage-backed securities for the same reason: above-market yields which looked like AAA-grade due to the trickery of CDOs and CDSs.
With all that cash pouring in, just dying for mortgages to invest in, we ended up with reassurances to home buyers, like "Suzanne researched this... you can do it:"
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubsd-tWYmZw
Sure, home buyers were ultimately responsible for being misled. But, as was the case with Enron, Madhoff, et. al., we tend to take a dim view of those who mislead.
In this case, the financial industry (and investors) were bailed out. I believe it had to be, or it would have taken us all down further than it already has. But, this is another example of why wealth (and income) disparity has widened to levels that make us have more in common with corrupt nations. |
|
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... And the other 98% didnt earn theirs?
I don't believe they should be taxed more, they should just be taxed on all of it like the others.
I personally think there should be a poverty line that pays no tax and then a flat tax on ALL income above that regardless of how it is earned and when. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25:I personally think there should be a poverty line that pays no tax and then a flat tax on ALL income above that regardless of how it is earned and when. Why would you have an abrupt, two-levels of progressive taxation?
Let's say your level between 0% and 20% would be $16k. The premise for choosing that level would be that the dollar earned below $16k is essential to a basic, poverty level of living. But, the very next dollar above $16k isn't?
That leads to the absurd position that the peanut butter, 1978 Ford Pinto and rented room that the $1k (above $16k) buys is just as "essential" and "basic" as the caviar, Ferrari, and McMansion purchased with the $1 million (above $16k).
The idea of two rates as a "flat tax" has never made sense to me. It's based upon an appeal to "fairness" (that not all standards of living are equally essential and basic). And then proceeds to create an unfair condition (that all standards of living are equally essential and basic).
I don't see what the benefit would be. If you're going to require people to report their income, and apply two rates (0% and 20%), it doesn't require any work to make those abrupt rates more progressive (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%). |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to viperlmw
Appearantly taxes are not paid by all. »latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing···irs.html |
|
| This is superfluous to this conversation. You're reply is still not correct, as even these folks are paying all the other taxes and fees out there. Income tax is only one piece of the revenue pie.
However, in another discussion, you're point w/regards to the link is valid, and totally pisses me off! |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to GroovyPhoenx
hmm, how did they do that? does lying pay big bucks? who is hiring for "liars"?
this is just silly b.s.... |
|
|
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to viperlmw
it is theft, at the point of a gun(and threat of incarceration) and you know it is...so sad to see how many on here hate "the rich" and willing to have the gov't steal from them on their behalf... |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:said by jfd15:and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... And the other 98% didnt earn theirs? I don't believe they should be taxed more, they should just be taxed on all of it like the others. I personally think there should be a poverty line that pays no tax and then a flat tax on ALL income above that regardless of how it is earned and when. sure, other 98% earned theirs also....but i'm not down with the whole "the more you earn, the more(and higher %) we're entitled to steal" b.s.... |
|
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:it is theft, at the point of a gun(and threat of incarceration) and you know it is...so sad to see how many on here hate "the rich" and willing to have the gov't steal from them on their behalf... So you are saying that the assessment and collection of taxes by a constitutionally elected government is equivalent to theft? The rich shouldn't pay tax? That's just ludicrous! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by viperlmw:said by jfd15:it is theft, at the point of a gun(and threat of incarceration) and you know it is...so sad to see how many on here hate "the rich" and willing to have the gov't steal from them on their behalf... So you are saying that the assessment and collection of taxes by a constitutionally elected government is equivalent to theft? The rich shouldn't pay tax? That's just ludicrous! He didn't say the wealthy shouldn't pay any tax. Just that the tax should be flat. You pay 10%. They pay 10%.
We don't have a flat tax, and never did. There are reasons against such a tax, which could explain why no credible movement for such a "flat" rate exists. The largest intellectual deficit of such a tax system is that even those who propose it don't really propose a "flat" system. They propose 0% for the first $16k of income, and 18% for every dollar over that amount.
That's two rates. Not "flat." And, it validates the point behind progressive taxation: that lower-income dollars are more "essential" and "basic" than high-income dollars.
It doesn't make any sense to exempt the first $16k because it's "essential" to a basic standard of living. But, the $10 over $16k isn't. Or, worse, that the $10 over $16k is equally essential to a basic standard of living as the $500,0000 over $16k.
So, "jfd15" was engaging in a bit of hyperbole.
1. He suggested he supports a tax system he probably doesn't. Or, at least not one that would ever have a chance of existing.
Therefore, in the absence of a truly "flat" income tax, we're left with progressive taxation and the questions that naturally arise concerning how levels of income are more or less essential to a basic standard of living.
2. He suggested that everyone who supports such progressive taxation is a "socialist."
But, he didn't want to talk about how he uses zoning laws to "steal" from his neighbor. (See my earlier reply to him for more details). |
|
