Bogus charges of "tax breaks" for the wealthy!

Stu Ghatze · Nov 26, 2005

It so full of baloney everytime I listen to leading democrats make that claim.

Absolute crap, & nonsense, ...those that make less, ..pay less, & in fact many pay nothing at all if they are on the real low end of wage earning scale!

In fact, ..those that make more, ..& I'm not talking about "JUST" the rich either SPEND their money, & stimulate the economy, ..& pay far far more than most of the low income wage earners.

Its common sense for Petes sake. Its sickening listening to the senate democrats always mouthing off about tax breaks for the rich, ..& its not quite correct at all!

They do MOST of the investing, & paying of the taxes, ..& generally take MOST of the financial risks, ..& invest in business & industry, & in fact HELP to CREATE jobs.

If the low end wage earners PREFER to stay where they are at, ...thats their business. This IS the land of opportunity, ..but when THEY are having the government pick up many of their daily needs through more phoney social giveaway programs, ..I guess they are quite comfortable right where they are at.

You better believe some of the phoney democrats in the senate SHELTER their REAL INCOMES quite nicely, ..especially John Kerry's wife setting up trust funds & paying herself a small salary so she does NOT have to pay a higher tax rate from the MILLIONS that she recieves from the Heinz food Co. yearly!

Of course now that Kerry lost the election last year, ..wifey Theresa has decided to NOT use the last name of "kerry" anymore;...just a simple THeresa Heinz will do now!

I wonder though, he's pretty good at spending her money ...does anybody think that gigolo has cleaned her out yet?:smile:

Simon W. Moon · Nov 26, 2005

This seems to be merely a rambling rant.

What's the point that you'd like to debate?
Is it somehow related to the proper spelling of ketchup?

Binary_Digit · Nov 26, 2005

I think it's inherently unfair to tax the rich more than the middle class. We are a capitalist society, we shouldn't punish people for being successful in capitalism. To say they make more, thus they should pay a higher percentage, is an exploit of their personal money. IMO

Inuyasha · Nov 26, 2005

Lend me a million dollars.
Then just sit back and relax
Pour youself a shot of sippin' whisky
and write it off your income tax.

hipsterdufus · Nov 26, 2005

Binary_Digit said:
I think it's inherently unfair to tax the rich more than the middle class. We are a capitalist society, we shouldn't punish people for being successful in capitalism. To say they make more, thus they should pay a higher percentage, is an exploit of their personal money. IMO

What we have in place here is a regressive tax which hurts the lower class more than the wealthy. Four out of five Americans pay more in payroll taxes, than they do in income taxes. Those taxes are in effect for the first dollar of every worker, but stop around $80,000. Income earners over 80K a year only pay a small medicare portion. In effect, the system is rigged against the poor and helps the rich disproportionately.

TimmyBoy · Nov 27, 2005

Binary_Digit said:
I think it's inherently unfair to tax the rich more than the middle class. We are a capitalist society, we shouldn't punish people for being successful in capitalism. To say they make more, thus they should pay a higher percentage, is an exploit of their personal money. IMO

Well not only that, but if you tax people too much you take away their incentive to start their own companies or to be innovative and creative. Taxation can stifle the economy because it stifles incentives for people to work or to come up with new ideas or to start their own company. And because it stifles all these things, it keeps more jobs from being created and it can kill jobs as well. People most certainly need to pay taxes and their are some poor people that do need governmenet assistance, but too much taxation can do serious harm to the economy. The leadership of this country must play a tricky of balancing act of not taxing too much but taxing just enough to help those willing to help themselves and to still give people incentives to work hard, be creative and to take risks which could lead to more job creation.

Simon W. Moon · Nov 27, 2005

I'm still looking for the debate and the connection to today's news.

If I can't find these things before I move this thread to the Basement, I'm going to move this thread to the Basement.

Stinger · Nov 28, 2005

Simon W. Moon said:
I'm still looking for the debate and the connection to today's news.

If I can't find these things before I move this thread to the Basement, I'm going to move this thread to the Basement.

With the tax issues currently on the table in the Congress this is a very current and "in the news" topic. And certainly more worthy of discussion than another "No WMD" thread of which there are many. Or another "Bush lied" thread, I don't see them questioned.

Stinger · Nov 28, 2005

hipsterdufus said:
What we have in place here is a regressive tax which hurts the lower class more than the wealthy. Four out of five Americans pay more in payroll taxes, than they do in income taxes. Those taxes are in effect for the first dollar of every worker, but stop around $80,000. Income earners over 80K a year only pay a small medicare portion. In effect, the system is rigged against the poor and helps the rich disproportionately.

I don't think you put in consideration the Earned Income Tax Credit which credits back those payroll deductions. I do find it amusing that when the left wants to support those programs they call those deductions "investments" but when they complain about people actually having to pay for their benefits they call them taxes and want someone else to foot the bill for them. Payroll taxes cover the cost of the government health insurance and retirement insurnace programs, do you think it would be fair for insurance companies to charge people based on their incomes? Or is it more fair that everyone pay the same amount, you know so that no one is descriminated against.

Simon W. Moon · Nov 28, 2005

Stinger said:
With the tax issues currently on the table in the Congress this is a very current and "in the news" topic.

Thanks for finding the connection, such as it is, to Today's News.

Did you happen to find the debatable proposition while you were looking?

Stinger said:
And certainly more worthy of discussion than another "No WMD" thread of which there are many. Or another "Bush lied" thread, I don't see them questioned.

The subject matter is not in question. What's in question is the style of expression. This seems to be merely a rambling rant.

I'd forgotten about this thread til you bumped it.

KCConservative · Nov 28, 2005

Stinger said:
With the tax issues currently on the table in the Congress this is a very current and "in the news" topic. And certainly more worthy of discussion than another "No WMD" thread of which there are many. Or another "Bush lied" thread, I don't see them questioned.

Can you say 'partisan moderating'?

Gibberish · Nov 28, 2005

KCConservative said:
Can you say 'partisan moderating'?

Can you say ignoring posts?

Simon W. Moon said:
The subject matter is not in question. What's in question is the style of expression. This seems to be merely a rambling rant.

I'd forgotten about this thread til you bumped it.

Iriemon · Nov 28, 2005

hipsterdufus said:
What we have in place here is a regressive tax which hurts the lower class more than the wealthy. Four out of five Americans pay more in payroll taxes, than they do in income taxes. Those taxes are in effect for the first dollar of every worker, but stop around $80,000. Income earners over 80K a year only pay a small medicare portion. In effect, the system is rigged against the poor and helps the rich disproportionately.

That is exactly right. Many millions of Americans pay *only* SS tax and do not pay income tax. The SS is too high -- it generates about $150 billion in surplus tax revenues each year (remember the talk about the "surplus" taxes belonging to the people as justification for the Bush tax cuts?). Yet the SS taxes, the taxes the working poor pay, have *never* been cut by Bush and the Republicans, and for that matter they have never even proposed cutting them.

Wonder why?

The income taxes are progressive taxes, paid more by the wealthy. These have been the subject of drastice tax cuts. Oh sure, the middle classes may have saved a few dollars, but the very wealthy have really made off with Bush's tax cuts -- benefitting both by the income tax rate reductions and the cuts in income earned from investments.

Bush/Republicans cut taxes that wealthy pay, but didn't cut the taxes the working poor pay.

Iriemon · Nov 28, 2005

Stinger said:
I don't think you put in consideration the Earned Income Tax Credit which credits back those payroll deductions. I do find it amusing that when the left wants to support those programs they call those deductions "investments" but when they complain about people actually having to pay for their benefits they call them taxes and want someone else to foot the bill for them. Payroll taxes cover the cost of the government health insurance and retirement insurnace programs, do you think it would be fair for insurance companies to charge people based on their incomes? Or is it more fair that everyone pay the same amount, you know so that no one is descriminated against.

The payroll taxes are too high. They generate $150 billion in surplus extra tax reveneus every year that the Govt uses as general revenues. To whom does that money belong to? Why wasn't the SS surplus taxes subject of tax cuts the way the income tax surplus was?

Inuyasha · Nov 28, 2005

What is the concencise of opinion on the "flat tax"? It has many positives.

Iriemon · Nov 28, 2005

Inuyasha said:
What is the concencise of opinion on the "flat tax"? It has many positives.

We have discussed the flat tax in detail in the economic section, if you flip back a few pages you'll find a thread with that title.

In sum, to make a flat tax work it would have to be about 25% of income. whether you think a flat tax would be better is a matter of opinion as to where the tax burden should lie. I personally do not think a fellow making $12,000 should have to pay a 25% tax. I think wealthier folks should pay a higher percentage of the tax burden. Mostly because they can afford it more easily.

If you want to discuss it further, make a post on the flat tax thread in the economics section and I'll be happy to share my views.

Stinger · Nov 28, 2005

Iriemon said:
The payroll taxes are too high.

Neither Social Security nor Medicare/Medicaid can meet their liabilities so your statement is flat our false, they are too low.

They generate $150 billion in surplus extra tax reveneus every year that the Govt uses as general revenues.

How they are used is a different debate, how do you think they should be used, what should the government do with the "excess"?

To whom does that money belong to?

Once it is taken from you it belongs to the politicians and then to whom they decide to give it to. But you are correct in that every dollar the government takes in in the form of income or payroll tax must first be earned and was previously owned by someone else.

Why wasn't the SS surplus taxes subject of tax cuts the way the income tax surplus was?

Because SS has unfunded liabilities. How do you propose to pay for the liabilities down the road when SS does not have surplus funds?

Stinger · Nov 28, 2005

Simon W. Moon said:
Thanks for finding the connection, such as it is, to Today's News.

Did you happen to find the debatable proposition while you were looking?

Yes as did about 6 others.

The subject matter is not in question. What's in question is the style of expression. This seems to be merely a rambling rant.

Like the "Bush lied" threads I mentioned?

I'd forgotten about this thread til you bumped it.

Really? It's only two days old.

Simon W. Moon · Nov 28, 2005

Stinger said:
Like the "Bush lied" threads I mentioned?

Can't really say. You didn' mention any in particular. So it's possible that there're some that would make you correct and some that'd make you wrong. Can't really make specific judgements w/o specific info.
Of course, it neither here nor there. I only discussed this OP.

Stinger said:
Really? It's only two days old.

Didn't make much of an impression on me obviously.

[MOD MODE]
If you have problems w/ my posts and/or my moderating, please fulfill your obligation as a board member by reporting them using the "Report Bad Post" link icon on bottom left of my posts. This will alert the entire Moderator and Admin Team to the situation and bring it before them for action. Also please include a brief explanation of what's wrong w/ my post in case it's not immediately obvious to all observers. You should also feel free to send me a pm detailing you objections (which I will also share with the entire Moderator and Admin Team).
Alternatively, you may also start a thread in the Basement about the matter.
In the meantime, let's not clutter the thread w/ hijacks any further.

I will not address any more comments re my moderating of this thread in this thread. If you wish to discuss this matter further, feel free to use one of the alternative venues I mentioned above

-SWM
[/MOD MODE]

Iriemon · Nov 28, 2005

Stinger said:
Neither Social Security nor Medicare/Medicaid can meet their liabilities so your statement is flat our false, they are too low.

Wrong. Social security tax receipts have exceed outlays by about $150 billion a year for the past 5 years. You can see it here, http://cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 table 1, under Deficit or Surplus:Social Security

And in any event, the fact that there have been insufficient revenues certainly didn't stop the Administration from cutting the income and cap gains/dividend taxes for the wealthy. So why not do the same for the tax the working poor pay?

How they are used is a different debate, how do you think they should be used, what should the government do with the "excess"?

That is true, except that because of the Republican deficits, the Govt has been using the SS tax surplus as general revenues instead of saving it up to pay future SS obligations like they were supposed to. The pertinent point here is that the Bush Admin and Republicans slashed taxes the wealthy pay, but didn't cut the tax that the working poor pay, despite the fact they have been generating surpluses.

Because SS has unfunded liabilities. How do you propose to pay for the liabilities down the road when SS does not have surplus funds?

Back to the previous point. If the Govt was actually saving the surplus SS taxes in a fund to pay for future SS benefits, you might have a point. But because of the deficits, the surplus SS taxes have been stolen for use as general revenues. So SS taxes they are just like any other tax. Except that they have never been cut by this Administration. Cutting SS taxes would hardly help the rich at all.

Stinger · Dec 5, 2005

Iriemon said:
The payroll taxes are too high.

Too high for whom? You want to cut the payroll taxes on the wealthy? The poor don't pay them, so whose payroll taxes are you going to cut?

They generate $150 billion in surplus extra tax reveneus every year

Well most insurance programs or private pensions and retirement plans do just that, they generate surpluses so they can pay for benefits in the future.

that the Govt uses as general revenues.

So your complaint is what is done with the money?

To whom does that money belong to?

Well it belonged to whomever earned it until the government took it. Then they gave it to someone else. The govenerment only transfers money.

Why wasn't the SS surplus taxes subject of tax cuts the way the income tax surplus was?

Because it's a ponzie scheme to begin with, it's a ripoff and until we, the people, are allowed to keep those surplus funds and invest them in accounts the WE control that belong to US it will continue to be a ripoff and will go broke.

So what's your plan?

Iriemon · Dec 5, 2005

Stinger said:
Too high for whom? You want to cut the payroll taxes on the wealthy? The poor don't pay them, so whose payroll taxes are you going to cut?

The very wealthy don't effectively pay SS as a percentage of their income. The tax is not levied after the first $90k or so.

Taxes are too high in the sense that the Government is collecting $150 billion more per year than need to pay benefits.

Well most insurance programs or private pensions and retirement plans do just that, they generate surpluses so they can pay for benefits in the future.

If our govt did that I'd agree you have a point. Instead, they steal the SS surplus revenues and use them as general revenues because of the deficits.

So your complaint is what is done with the money?

For sure I have a complaint about that. So should every other person in this country that pays extra SS taxes that were supposed to be building up a trust fund to finance the boomer's SS.

Well it belonged to whomever earned it until the government took it. Then they gave it to someone else. The govenerment only transfers money.

Depends upon what you mean by "transfer" (is military spending a transfer?) but generally that is right.

Because it's a ponzie scheme to begin with, it's a ripoff and until we, the people, are allowed to keep those surplus funds and invest them in accounts the WE control that belong to US it will continue to be a ripoff and will go broke.

I'd be happy if even the govt invested them for our future as opposed to spending them on the deficits. We arlready have personal accounts.

So what's your plan?

Raise taxes to 90s levels. Cut spending 5% across the board. That should balance the budget, hold spending until there is a a surplus again to start paying down the debt. Save the excess SS taxes in a trust fund that will actually help finance the boomer's SS needs.

I also think we need to look at the benefits side of SS. Making SS means tested will help a lot.

Those things will help prepare America for the future. For the past 5 years our Govt has been hocking our future.

LaMidRighter · Dec 5, 2005

Iriemon said:
Iriemon said:

That is exactly right. Many millions of Americans pay *only* SS tax and do not pay income tax. The SS is too high -- it generates about $150 billion in surplus tax revenues each year (remember the talk about the "surplus" taxes belonging to the people as justification for the Bush tax cuts?). Yet the SS taxes, the taxes the working poor pay, have *never* been cut by Bush and the Republicans, and for that matter they have never even proposed cutting them.

Click to expand...

I can rebut this by speaking of investment. When you pay SS taxes you are fully vested after 10 quarters, the payroll taxes from your check are supposed to be paid to you as a pension/healthcare package. Only problem is, as you mentioned, the funds have been dipped into and now the program is in deep trouble. When you pay an income tax, you essentially pay other things, some of those paid have an returning value, most don't(like pork projects, social programs). Essentially, when the non returning "investments" are wasted through ineffeciency, your hard earned tax dollars are basically flushed down the toilet, naturally, those who don't pay the income tax haven't lost anything because their taxes went to programs that will go to them, whereas, those who could be given the break finally have more of their hard earned money to either buy, invest, or directly hire, which stimulates the economy, rather than their tax dollars going into money vacuum programs.
Think about it, if someone came up to you and said "hey, I know you don't know me, but I want you to give me 110k$ to start a business, I won't pay you back, and you won't share in the returns, but I really need this contribution", you would have either one of two responses, either riotous laughter or anger, if he forced you to do it only anger could be the response. So, with this example, why is it ok for the federal government to take more of your money than someone else's and waste it on non returning programs.

The income taxes are progressive taxes, paid more by the wealthy. These have been the subject of drastice tax cuts. Oh sure, the middle classes may have saved a few dollars, but the very wealthy have really made off with Bush's tax cuts -- benefitting both by the income tax rate reductions and the cuts in income earned from investments.

Click to expand...

And the economy, and the job market, and the national treasury. The wealthy create jobs, which increases the tax base. How many poor people have created employment opportunities?

Bush/Republicans cut taxes that wealthy pay, but didn't cut the taxes the working poor pay.

Click to expand...

Because they don't pay excessive taxes.

LaMidRighter · Dec 5, 2005

Iriemon said:
Iriemon said:

The very wealthy don't effectively pay SS as a percentage of their income. The tax is not levied after the first $90k or so.

Click to expand...

How much do you want to tax the wealthy?! They already pay obscene income tax and their cap is at more than most people see in a year, 90K$ is alot of money to pay BEFORE the income tax, which is around 37-41% depending on deductions. This starts at 205K BTW, I'll ask you this, would you want to have the ability to enter the "wealthy" class and have damn near 50% of your income taken back just by the federal government which makes your 205K worth less than 100K? I don't! Also, say I wanted to expand my business or invest, and then all of that is taken away from me, why then, should I bother when everything I work for or gain from investment gets whittled away, if anything, the only way the tax structure is geared toward(since at least the 70's) is keeping people right where they are at, that's why it's such a big issue.

Taxes are too high in the sense that the Government is collecting $150 billion more per year than need to pay benefits.

Click to expand...

Which will not be enough if left alone, the SS working to retired ratio is approaching the tipping point, and the trustfund is depleted, meaning that surplus is essentially worthless.

If our govt did that I'd agree you have a point. Instead, they steal the SS surplus revenues and use them as general revenues because of the deficits.

Click to expand...

No argument.

Raise taxes to 90s levels. Cut spending 5% across the board. That should balance the budget, hold spending until there is a a surplus again to start paying down the debt. Save the excess SS taxes in a trust fund that will actually help finance the boomer's SS needs.

Click to expand...

Didn't work then and won't now, as far as raising taxes goes. Freezing spending is a great idea, but won't happen, and the surplus never existed, it was based on projections that were nullified in the last quarter of Clinton's administration.

I also think we need to look at the benefits side of SS. Making SS means tested will help a lot.

Click to expand...

Means testing won't happen, because people who invested more will complain, whether we like it or not, those who paid the suggested cap have paid more into the system and thus have as much of if not more of a right to it. The best way to do it would be risky, but, first, FICA taxes must be dedicated to an SS/Medicare account, it has to be a federal crime to use those funds for any other purpose(and an impeachable offense), then, to make up the losses from prior abuse, privatize a small percentage since the private sector typically has better returns, currently SS has a 1% rate, that is pathetic considering the low average guaranteed private rate is around 2.5-3%.

Those things will help prepare America for the future. For the past 5 years our Govt has been hocking our future.

Click to expand...

Try 60 years(FDR and the New Deal started the whole thing).

Iriemon · Dec 5, 2005

LaMidRighter said:
How much do you want to tax the wealthy?! They already pay obscene income tax and their cap is at more than most people see in a year, 90K$ is alot of money to pay BEFORE the income tax, which is around 37-41% depending on deductions. This starts at 205K BTW, I'll ask you this, would you want to have the ability to enter the "wealthy" class and have damn near 50% of your income taken back just by the federal government which makes your 205K worth less than 100K? I don't! Also, say I wanted to expand my business or invest, and then all of that is taken away from me, why then, should I bother when everything I work for or gain from investment gets whittled away, if anything, the only way the tax structure is geared toward(since at least the 70's) is keeping people right where they are at, that's why it's such a big issue.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source that shows the income tax rate is 37-41%? I don't believe it is that high.

A person making $200k doesn't pay anywhere near $100K in taxes. More like half that.

I don't like to pay taxes. I don't know anybody who does. On the other hand, the alternative path we have been following since Bush was elected -- borrow the difference -- creates a growing burden on the economy, is ultimately unsustainable, and simply passes the buck -- the cost of our government -- to the next generation, and is therefore immoral, IMO.

The tax rate we had in '93-00 didn't seem to quell incentive. Economic growth during that 8 year period was higher than any time since the 60s. And it generated enough revenue to balance the budget and have a surplus, based on spending levels at that time. With 2 new wars and 2 new major spending programs, taxes should have been raised, not slashed.

Which will not be enough if left alone, the SS working to retired ratio is approaching the tipping point, and the trustfund is depleted, meaning that surplus is essentially worthless.

Click to expand...

True statement. The surplus is worthless because the Govt has stolen everything from it to finance the deficits.

If our govt did that I'd agree you have a point. Instead, they steal the SS surplus revenues and use them as general revenues because of the deficits. No argument.

Click to expand...

This is a national scandal. But you seldom hear about it in the liberal media.

Didn't work then and won't now, as far as raising taxes goes.

Click to expand...

Empirically and historically, it did. The Govt ran huge deficits after the Reagan tax cuts. Clinton and the Dems raised the top rate to 39% in 1993, which was a major reason the budget balanced and went into surplus in 2000.

Tax revenues plummeted and the deficits skyrocked after the Bush tax cuts.

Freezing spending is a great idea, but won't happen, and the surplus never existed, it was based on projections that were nullified in the last quarter of Clinton's administration.

Click to expand...

Politically, spending cuts or freezes will never work when people perceive that the rich keep their tax cuts. But if you combine them both as a package, and sell it as necessary to balance the budget, it could fly, I (optimistically) believe.

There was an actual surplus in 2000. A real one, not counting the SS surplus. See CBO.gov showing the budget surplus; and look at the decrease in total public debt in CY2000.

Means testing won't happen, because people who invested more will complain, whether we like it or not, those who paid the suggested cap have paid more into the system and thus have as much of if not more of a right to it.

Click to expand...

Entitlements like this is a 60s liberal concept that even most liberals don't support today.

The best way to do it would be risky, but, first, FICA taxes must be dedicated to an SS/Medicare account, it has to be a federal crime to use those funds for any other purpose(and an impeachable offense),

Click to expand...

Strongly agree.

then, to make up the losses from prior abuse, privatize a small percentage since the private sector typically has better returns, currently SS has a 1% rate, that is pathetic considering the low average guaranteed private rate is around 2.5-3%.

Click to expand...

Privatizing SS won't solve the funding problem. We already have private accounts.

Iriemon: Those things will help prepare America for the future. For the past 5 years our Govt has been hocking our future.

Click to expand...

Try 60 years(FDR and the New Deal started the whole thing).

Click to expand...

Actually, in 2000 the Govt had a budget surplus, and we were not hocking our future.

Bogus charges of "tax breaks" for the wealthy!

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member

Simon W. Moon

Binary_Digit

Inuyasha

hipsterdufus

TimmyBoy

Simon W. Moon

Stinger

Stinger

Simon W. Moon

KCConservative

Gibberish

Iriemon

Iriemon

Inuyasha

Iriemon

Stinger

Stinger

Simon W. Moon

Iriemon

Stinger

Iriemon

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto

Iriemon

Bogus charges of "tax breaks" for the wealthy!

Well-known member

hipsterdufus

Klattu Verata Nicto

Klattu Verata Nicto

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency