Them using this money in the general fund is not as simple as that. This is not a program that is intended to support general government spending.
When the government uses this money, they are not simply taxing it away and spending, they are creating an account payable or new debt here. They still have to pay that money back.
You are claiming it goes into the general spending budget without accepting that it only creates a debt to do so. Lowering FICA on anyone only increases the debt incurred.
Treating as a general spending fund without a cap or making it progressive is the same as a HUGE increase on the wealthy who already pay a very progressive FIT and telling them that on top of the government spending all the money they put into retirement for themselves, they also have to fund everyone else's retirement because they managed to make money.
Yet, that is exactly what has been done. Without the ss receipts we would never have able to both reduce the tax rates for the rich and simultaneously spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.
Not if the GOP gets their way, they want to cut payments to the people that paid those taxes. In short, they are trying to find ways to welch on their debt.
You want to treat FICA as FIT here.
Nope, FICA is part of the total tax that the working class have to pay on their total income, in addition to FIT
Of course, that is why the cap needs to be raised.
If the wealthy had been paying taxes that were adequately progressive there would have been no need to spend the SS receipts. This debt allowed the rich to enjoy 30 years of tax breaks, so it is only right that the debt should be repaid by eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.
They made more money by providing less pay to the workers and moving jobs overseas.
The working class therefore have no obligation or incentive to vote in November to continue their tax cuts.
1. Social Security is and was always intended as a supplement to your own retirement income. It was never designed to be the sole source of one's retirement.
2. If I am not mistaken, it was LBJ who first tapped the social security funds for general spending as a means of financing the continuing Viet Nam War when Congress began limiting funds.
On #2, I think you are right, but I'm not sure of the point you are making.
On #1, they take 15.3% of your income! I don't know about you, but that makes it hard for me to put much more into retirement most years.
I assume you are talking about income taxes = 15.3% of your income or are you including FICA? In either case depending on how old you are, and who you work for there is still ways to save. If you are young time is on your side. If you work for a firm with a matching dollar 401K or like plan and are not contributing then you are giving up the 100% return any matched dollar earns right out of the gate.
I did post a link for that 97% comment a ways back and would be happy to do so again.
Regarding FIT, SIT, and FICA, I did start a thread to discuss the differences, but everyone seems to want to discuss them here. Put without flourish, state is a separate government and FICA is intended to be flat because of the style of ROI.
In his victory speech the night of New Hampshire's primary, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Obama was a "leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy,"
In his speech Friday, Obama reiterated a core theme from this week's State of the Union address by calling for the end of tax cuts and loopholes benefiting the country's top earners. Obama assured lawmakers the plan would prove popular with voters. Obama continued, "We're going to push hard to make sure someone making over a million dollars a year aren't getting tax breaks and tax subsidies they don't need, not out of envy, but out of a sense of fairness and a sense of mutual responsibility and a sense of commitment for the country's future, and that's what we're fighting for. The American people understand that."
Which tax cut was so beneficial to the rich only?
And why, when taxes were cut, are we not looking at the lack of reduction in spending?
Well, you make the obvious mistake that I'm GOP, which is just wrong. I just happen to be able to tell the difference in the taxes.
I really don't want to treat FICA as FIT here.
That is my whole point. I don't want to take what was set aside for retirement, claim it was there for the general fund, and use it as a 15.3% (8.4% under current revenue cut) increase in taxes on everyone for the general fund. I want to stop pretending that it's okay for the government to claim they are taking as a retirement and just using it for more debt spending.
All this stuff about the use of it does not change why the tax is there and why it is supposed to be flat. When you muddle that up, you just tell the government that it's okay that they are spending everyone's retirement, the wealthy will give them money when they retire.
Or they could stop debt spending that is so extreme that they have spent everyone's retirement and now the wealthy are being asked to pay higher tax rates and cover everyone's retirement.
The working class has many reasons. They could prefer not to have a nanny state. They might want people to have some freedoms in how they spend their money.
They might understand that the government stole their money on the premise of covering their retirement and then spent it poorly instead.
They might not want their employer to lose incentive to do business in the US.
Oh I know ... no need to post the link. My point was that Romney pays taxes in the bracket of a lower income American.
Yes I know ... the OP was to juxtapose posters federal tax rate compared to Romney and many side discussions occurred. I was only speaking to federal tax rate and FICA and not my state taxes. The glaring point is an american work full time plus earning between 75.000-200,000 a year is paying a far greater percentage of taxes than Romney.
I was speaking of federal taxes and I did include FICA. I mentioned my state and property taxes yet only after the fact and not in comparison to Romney.
I realize you are analytical and logical and the "jealousy" and "envy" and "class war fare" argument is not your premise.
I mention that only because Romney uses that phrase on the trail and I think it is a strawman.
The tax cuts on inheritance, capital gains, and outsourcing jobs.
So, my argument is that they did a poor job of handling our money and your counterpoint is that they should be leading the world?World hegemony is not cheap?
I never said you were GOP.
No one has ever suggested they are. FICA is however part of the effective federal taxes the working class has to pay.
Me too, but until those funds are locked away from general fund use, we are where we are.
When the funds are locked from general fund use we should have that discussion.
Yes, we have overspent, mostly on excessive military spending and optional wars. It began under the Reagan Administration. The other half of the problem is the 30 years of tax cuts to the rich. The only way to fix 30 years of spending too much and taxing the rich too little is to do the reverse.
I don't think the working class spends a lot of time worrying how the rich spend the money that they themselves no longer have.
And that helps Mitt Romney how? He proposes increasing military spending.
50% of the country has an average income of $15,800. I think you might be overestimating the glee of the working class with their declining status.
I'm pretty sure I do as well. However, I am absolutely sure that I really don't care whether he does or not. I don't sit around whining that somebody has more money than I do, or is capable of working the system better than I am. I've got more important things to concern myself with on a daily basis, and other issues I consider much more important regarding political candidates.
the death tax is nothing more than a surcharge on the group that pays the most income taxes and the only reason it remains is because it only hits a couple percent of the population. It is an abomination that should be ended
I agree with you Turtle that the current estate tax law should be abolished and all transfer of income from one person to a different person should simply be handled as an income transfer with the appropriate tax paid upon it.
I suspect that if you had to decide between that and the current estate tax, you would suddenly become the worlds biggest advocate for keeping the current estate tax.
Given the choice between death tax and paying taxes when I give my son 100 bucks for his birthday... I choose Canada! Now that's saying something!
Mostly because I was faced with the choice, though. As things stand, I will stick it out here.
I wonder how many of the 21 who said yes are actually paying a federal income tax effective rate of 15%.
I bet not many of them
Turbotax told me that mine was 10.99%.
that is your federal income tax correct. that makes sense
I'd like all those subject to the death tax to unite and wreak financial havoc on those who keep whining for the death tax.
And just how would this Caviar Crusade work?
caviar makes me heave
That is both unfortunate as well as too much information. I find it to be an acquired taste.
But just how would this army of the trust fund babies work to effect the blackmail they want to exert over the government?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?