It's your lie....Or are you suggesting that self employed FICA taxes somehow don't count as taxes paid?
At least i don't have to pretend in order to make partisan talking points on an anon discussion forum. Have fun with your "self-employed" tax schedule nonsense.You should have just stuck with your incompetency defense.
At least i don't have to pretend in order to make partisan talking points on an anon discussion forum. Have fun with your "self-employed" tax schedule nonsense.
Ok, so it is becoming more clear that my position is ridiculous and typical of my off-topic racist trolling full of lies.
My position is that you'll change the story to fit whatever narrative you've originally set out on. In this case it's how S.S. hurts the upper middle class.Ok, so it is becoming more clear that your position
It is incredibly dishonest
You get what you choose to give, making life fair for all.
My position is that you'll change the story to fit whatever narrative you've originally set out on. In this case it's how S.S. hurts the upper middle class.
That's your narrative when you made up the story about paying $1 million in S.S. taxes.Quote me where I said "SS hurts the upper middle class". I'll wait.
What narrative is that? That you make shit up to earn pretend points on political discussion boards? That's simply been demonstrated by your rhetoric.You are changing my comments to make your made up, poorly constructive, narrative hold water.
No it's not. Like i said originally... this is your lie, so tell it however you want.All I said was that the upper class gets a comparatively bad return from SS. That's a statistical fact.
Lol. I‘m making up crap yet again. So I’m going to edit my comment to attempt to misrepresent what you said because I can’t control my fingers on a keyboard.
It also doesn't take into account lifetime benefit disbursement as a function of lifetime income levels.This is precisely what I said, this doens't even take into account taxation and reduction in benefits.
So your issue is wealthy people are taxed to support the social safety net in the U.S.? Get over it. We built a nation that includes helping those that need help.There is a cap on how large a SS benefit can be. So, let's say the SS cap for a person who delays SS until 70 would be $3800 or so a month. The income that person was taxed on for SS purposes was up to the first $162K.
Let's say a person has a high income. High income people are already taxed at higher rates in general. But the SS tax is "linked" to the eventual benefit they'll receive. So, if the income level is raised but the max benefit isn't raised, linkage changes to a punishment of the richer people for a program where that linkage has historically been maintained and I'd argue should be maintained.
That's not actually a problem. The wealthier people are not struggling the same in retirement.half the picture. The other half is the already negative treatment wealthier people get on their SS benefits as well
That's your narrative when you made up the story about paying $1 million in S.S. taxes.
What narrative is that? That you make shit up to earn pretend points on political discussion boards? That's simply been demonstrated by your rhetoric.
No it's not. Like i said originally... this is your lie, so tell it however you want.
Look what you did in your posts (#420 and #425) in the other SS related thread. You attributed quoted post content to me which I never posted. I’m simply replacing and/or editing your post’s content with other content as you did with mine. Get used to it.
So your issue is wealthy people are taxed to support the social safety net in the U.S.? Get over it. We built a nation that includes helping those that need help.
We can afford it, in spades. Corporations just got huge tax cuts along with the wealthy...the are pumping money out of our economy, but they need to give back to support the very systems, infrastructure, and people, that made their high incomes possible.
That's not actually a problem. The wealthier people are not struggling the same in retirement.
You guys really are just all about the wealthy, and claiming they are the real victims here. We live in, by far, the wealthiest nation in human history. We can afford ****ing safety nets.
While we're at it, health care and improvements in education....
All of it. You made it up to push your partisan narrative, and the only person who cares about it is you.Again, which part of that is made up?
You didn't do any math. In all actuality, @ttwtt78640 had to inform you of the top 35 year calculation, while you continue to cling to employer contribution.I did the math for you, something you evidently still struggle to keep up with.
Again, which part of that is made up? I did the math for you, something you evidently still struggle to keep up with.
You still have yet to point out what you actually think is a lie, something you are doing intentionally because you know how full of crap you are right now and that you can't defend any aspect of your comments here.
I am not sure what you are referring to. If I misquoted someone it because of my use of copy/paste to attribute to users. I have never changed someone's actual verbiage or comments and even when I have misquoted someone because of the above I have apologized. If I misattributed that to you, I was unaware and I apologize.
That is however no excuse for intentionally altering comments *and* falsely attributing them to someone. That is simply grossly unethical and dishonest.
All of it. You made it up to push your partisan narrative, and the only person who cares about it is you.
You didn't do any math. In all actuality, @ttwtt78640 had to inform you of the top 35 year calculation, while you continue to cling to employer contribution.
I was quite clear as to which posts I was referring. Whether it was due to your ‘sloppiness’ or not, it resulted in an alert being sent to me about “my” post.
More dishonesty. Nothing you've claimed is representative of the 10 facts highlighted in that paper, unless you attempt to cherry-pick statements to exclude their context.The same "narrative" that was the conclusion that the CBPP came to?
I get that you will not address the discrepancy in beneficiary distribution. It flies in the face of your "the wealthy have it bad because of progressive taxation" con.That one that you are now calling a false and partisan hack job?
It's how you attempt to shift from your original error. When it is shown mathematically you can't possibly contribute $1 million on 70 years worth of contributions, shift the burden to incorporate employers, and you can pretend to have been some kind of expert all along.Or the fact that the employer and employee contribution are the exact same number and thus part of the same calculation?
More dishonesty. Nothing you've claimed is representative of the 10 facts highlighted in that paper, unless you attempt to cherry-pick statements to exclude their context.
I get that you will not address the discrepancy in beneficiary distribution. It flies in the face of your "the wealthy have it bad because of progressive taxation" con.
It's how you attempt to shift from your original error. When it is shown mathematically you can't possibly contribute $1 million on 70 years worth of contributions, shift the burden to incorporate employers, and you can pretend to have been some kind of expert all along.
Those poor-rich people have it bad because the U.S. is the most progressively taxed nation in the world... amirite?
Why do you repeat this lie after you've been proven wrong so many times?First off, understand that the US already has the most progressive tax code in the developed world.
Your point is rather meaningless... unless of course you are here simply to cry about progressive taxation. To that end, you've been very successful.My entire point has always been the progressivity of the SS program. Something that the source clearly states.
Whether or not it's part of some arbitrary rational is irrelevant. A wealthier individual or household will likely collect far longer and at higher levels than someone (or household) that is at the median income contribution while being able to retire earlier.Life expectancy is hit or miss and also gender specific. Moreover, that was not part of the rationale for the SS discrimination on benefit treatment.
They aren't treated as income or are not taxed as such. It doesn't matter anyway... the context of the exchange was based on individual contribution, and not an attempt to aggregate to some faux level just to claim to have more skin in the game. Furthermore, it is also a fact that contribution limits are capped at $160k for 2023, meaning payroll income earned above this level will not contribute to individual contribution.Oh, ok. So you are again trying to pretend that self employed contributions, or even W2 employer contributions, somehow don't count?
Underhanded? It's the cost of doing business! Your endless whining has become quite comical.That's an interesting conclusion. When I write my quarterly checks to the IRS, somehow that number is included. The fact that you are trying to pretend this is somehow underhanded is pretty comical.
This is another lie. Having a more progressive tax system isn't tantamount to income / wealth destruction. If you do not know this already, there really isn't any point taking this discussion further.I simply point that out as so many people are under the misguided view that the US tax system favors the rich, when it is in fact the least favorable to the rich compared to our developed peers.
The entire point of your source is the success of the S.S. program when it comes to reducing elderly poverty.
Whether or not it's part of some arbitrary rational is irrelevant.
They aren't treated as income or are not taxed as such. It doesn't matter anyway... the context of the exchange was based on individual contribution, and not an attempt to aggregate to some faux level just to claim to have more skin in the game. Furthermore, it is also a fact that contribution limits are capped at $160k for 2023, meaning payroll income earned above this level will not contribute to individual contribution.
Underhanded? It's the cost of doing business! Your endless whining has become quite comical.
This is another lie. Having a more progressive tax system isn't tantamount to income / wealth destruction. If you do not know this already, there really isn't any point taking this discussion further.
Progressivity is based on the relative tax code. Your continued attempt to label it as a negative connotation fails as a result.
It's not about crying over progressive taxation. The program can be revamped similar to the 1980's. Things change, and so should the funding of various programs.And the point of this thread is about the sustainability of the program, which is why it becomes relevant to talk about the overall mechanisms and funding of it.
Again... things change, and so should the way the program is funded. All you want to do is whine and make personal claims. Nobody gives a **** about what you claim to be.It's relevant when every reasonable individual on the planet would consider it a tax paid by an individual, particularly when self employed
Nonsense. That's the cost of doing business. Nobody ever claims their gross income incorporates various costs associated with their employment... to do so would be inherently ignorant.The "individual contribution" is based on the "individual earnings". Part of your total compensation includes these taxes paid on your behalf.
You're just trying to throw anything at your false statement. I get it... people have a tendency to dig into bogus claims out of sheer egoism. It doesn't fly here.No, the part that is underhanded is your representation that those taxes don't count somehow.
People don't include their employer contributions as gross income. End of story. You've lost here and will continue the black knight routine until i get bored with you or your next account suspension.I am not claiming self employed fica taxes are underhanded, only the fact that you don't include these tax payments for some mysterious reason.
You bring up processive taxation for a reason, and i guarantee it's not for praise or positive analysis. You view it as something evil and unnecessary. I don't know why this misinterpretation is built into hardline conservative ideology, but it needs to die.Thanks for proving the point yet again. You just lied again about my statement. I never said anything about income or wealth destruction. I simply stated that the US has the most progressive tax code in the developed world. You can't add tag-along statements, attribute them erroneously to me, and then call me a liar.
Of course it is relative to the tax code and the comparable peers, that's the whole point! Where did I label in a negative fashion? I am simply pointing out that we already have the most progressive code in the world and people simply can't accept it. Look at the gymnastics you are doing constantly and insistently trying to put words in my mouth in order to make a point that never existed in the first place.
The program can be revamped similar to the 1980's. Things change, and so should the funding of various programs.
Again... things change, and so should the way the program is funded. All you want to do is whine and make personal claims. Nobody gives a **** about what you claim to be.
Nonsense. That's the cost of doing business. Nobody ever claims their gross income incorporates various costs associated with their employment... to do so would be inherently ignorant.
You're just trying to throw anything at your false statement. I get it... people have a tendency to dig into bogus claims out of sheer egoism. It doesn't fly here.
People don't include their employer contributions as gross income.
You bring up processive taxation for a reason, and i guarantee it's not for praise or positive analysis. You view it as something evil and unnecessary. I don't know why this misinterpretation is built into hardline conservative ideology, but it needs to die.
How so? I (currently) get $1,980/month ($23,760/year) net (after Medicare premiums are deducted) in Social Security (SS) income. IIRC, I paid about $75K in cumulative (lifetime) FICA payroll tax ‘contributions’ before ‘retiring’ at age 62.
Assuming a 100% employer match that’s $150K or enough to cover about 6.3 years of my net SS benefits. However, since that also paid for 100% of my Medicare ($148/month or $1776/year) premiums (starting at age 65), I have already gotten more back than I (and my employers) had ever paid in.
People don't include their employer contributions as gross income. End of story. You've lost here and will continue the black knight routine until i get bored with you or your next account suspension.
Yes.Could it?
You're in no position to make claims regarding math.I am not sure the math agrees with you at this point.
It takes political will. One way or another, the system will be forced to adhere to changes in demographics and economic reality.The problem is the revamp needed to happen 10+ years ago. Now, unless you are going to hit active and near future bennies with the changes the math seems like it is simply too late unless the changes are extremely heavy handed.
That's all it sounds like.Again, it isn't a whine
You aren't pointing out anything of value... hence you've earned some cheese to go with your whining.it was pointing out that the program was exceptionally progressive from top to bottom and that the current funding situation is dire, at best.
Nobody uses their employer contribution for FICA as a means of measuring their gross income. You've lost.Reallllyyyy?
What narrative??? that you made something up, got called out, and don't like it? Get real.Except you're wrong, they do often, they did here, you just don't like it because it doesn't make your narrative work.
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?