Democrat's Spending Plans Don't Show Any Signs Of Sanity

[ataraxia]

Yeah, it’s all about those evil dems:

“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
-Dick Cheney

 

[Ug make hammer]

Democrats spend taxpayer dollars like drunk millionaires at a strip club.

And Republicans spend taxpayer dollars like coked-up bankrupts at a strip club.

(Republicans spent $3.1 Trillion from deficit last year. Trump could have veto'd it, but he didn't.)

 

[bave]

A new tax that didn't exist before, isn't "theft". That's just hysterical label magic.

The current policy of the Democratic party is to promise benefits to the majority at the expense of the minority. You are effectively legalizing the concept of morality based, government approved, theft. We aren't talking about new tax vs old tax, we are talking about redistribution, which is just a nice name for taking from one group and giving to another, in this case, by force.

Ugh? UGH? You are disgusted by the demand that you do a lick of work to back up your own claim?

Did I say disgusted? No, I didn't. The ugh is the fact that I have shown this information dozens of times on this very site and it is very easily available from places like the OECD, World Bank, and even Boston Globe and Washington Post. I would prefer that people try to look something up before expecting someone to spoon feed it to them just so they can attack the source or some other obscure method of ignoring the data.

3.8% is less than 13.5% ... and we should agree on whether to count the employer contribution which they can write off against corporate tax, but is still a paperwork burden for small businesses. But it's a LOT less, so you're not beating the rap of being regressive that easily. The actual Social Security payments are capped, but also dependent in a complex way on wages/salary late in life. Which is when the rich tend to be super-rich.

This is wrong on many levels. First off, the super rich are never exposed to FICA. I would be shocked if Bezos or Musk even maxed out the cap half the time in the last 20 years. All the super rich income is in the form of unearned income and thus entirelty exempt from FICA. SS is based on your top earning *35* years. This isn't some government cushy pension program that is based on top 3 that you can spike and manipulate. It is based on lifetime contributions more or less. The progressive part of the SS and Medicare system is more complex and the average person can't handle basic math at this point on society, but here goes. SS taxes are linear on earnings, so no progressivity, sure. However the benefits are massively tilted away from the upper income. Not just in the minimum benefits, but also in the secondary benefits (ie: disability), but especially in the taxation and reduction of benefits as a form of means testing, you can't ignore that and just say, "well the taxes aren't progressive!" when the system benefit is linked to pay in, but then reduced for higher income folks. The medicare system is even more obvious. A person with a $10MM annual MAGI is going to pay ~$400M in medicare taxes for the same benefit as the person who paid in $100. How is that not progressive?

If I'm reading you correctly, you think FICA is progressive itself? When there was a graph just up the page showing that it's regressive? Wtf?

See above, like I said, it is a bit more complex than just looking at a pretty picture, but the simpletons of the world today can't get past a partisan graph taking data out of context.