| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/9 |
| 2004/1/21 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity, Reference/Tax] UID:11869 Activity:nil |
1/20 [18-hour rule for debated threads enforced: political thread restored.]
Finally a tax cut the Republican's don't like:
\_ The apostrophe doesn't mean "an s
will follow"
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif _/
One that helps the middle class most, of course.
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003060.html
\_ typical... the rich & poor are taxed the same amt of SS due to the
$88k+ cap, so reducing SS tax helps all $80k earners the same
dollar amount, but of course $6k is pennies for the millionaire
while it's 2 months mortgage for normal folks.
\_ If you're paying $3k/month mortgage and/or making $88k a year,
here's a big fat fucking hint: YOU'RE NOT POOR!
\_ And that cap used to be $70k not that long ago.
\_ Yeah, let's kill social security sooner. Funny how it isn't called a
tax, but rather SS when it's supposed to be put into a 'lockbox'.
But when we want to shift the tax burden even higher it's called a
tax. -emarkp
\_ Did Bush raid the "lockbox"? Yes, he did and he used it to
handout tax cuts for the rich.
\_ Sh. Maligning the Pres. isn't allowed in Del Paso Manor.
\_ Pyramid scheme.
\_ Last I checked, my SS rate was still the same. -emarkp
\_ Rate, yes, funds available, no.
\_ Are the funds available >= the funds needed? -emarkp
\_ Well they would have been, if they had not
all been spent. Good enough until 2038 at least.
\_ So you're claiming that we're deficit spending for
SS? That is, that outlays of SS are higher than
collections? If so, I'd like to see something to
back up the claim. -emarkp
\_ No, I am claiming the opposite. Though the
outlays are projected to pass income in 2013
or so.
\_ So what precisely is your objection to moving
SS money around if there's a surplus? -emarkp
\_ I think the money should be used to
pay off the debt, not pay off GWB's
campaign contributors. Silly me.
\_ I don't see why any of you give a shit about SS. Not one of us
is likely to see so much as a penny from it after paying into it
for decades. People are living too long, getting too much out,
and not putting enough in to cover any of us.
\_ Hear hear... SS will be bankrupt long before we retire,
probably after the substantially increase taxes and
retroactively tax retirement savings.
\_ http://csua.org/u/5mh
"As critics have long noted, that means that someone earning [$87,900]
pays the same Social Security payroll tax as Microsoft's Bill Gates."
"For example, a filer earning between $40,000 and $50,000 pays 12.2
percent of his income in payroll taxes and 8.5 percent in income
taxes, according to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
By contrast, a worker earning more than $500,000 pays 3.5 percent of
income in payroll taxes, and 27.3 percent in income taxes."
\_ Worse than that, the combined rate is higher for people
making $87k/yr than it is for people making 88k-300k.
Guess how much I make?
\_ You do understand that federal income tax and social security
are wildly different things, right? The only thing they have
in common is that they're deducted from your salary (SS even
deducts from your company equal to the amount from your salary,
so you're really getting twice the shaft).
\_ They seem the same to me. The federal government takes
a bunch of my money and spends it. What is "different"
about them?
\_ You understand that people get the same amount out if they put
the same amount in? BG is not going to get more out of SS than
someone who made exactl $88k every year. If you think SS taxes
are so unfair to the poor then let's let the max contribution
rise all the way up and then we can pay BG a billion or two a
year when he hits 67 (or whatever) because he'll have put so
much in over the years. That makes sense, right?
\_ you're an idiot.
\_ thank you. now I know I've hit a nerve when that's the
only response to a factual description of how the world
works.
\_ You are wrong. Say two guys pay the same amount in and one
dies at 65 and other lives to be 100. They do not get the
same amount out. Your statement goes downhill from there.
\_ here's where I get to say "you're an idiot". Must I also
explain why the sky is blue? Please take your anal
retentive self and find a rock to crawl under. You're
the only one here who didn't understand the very basic
gradeschool concepts being applied here. In this case,
there is nothing the government can do if you drop dead
too early, however, it is obvious to any child that if
you live the same length of time you'll get the same amount
out as BG, assuming you're the same age, start drawing at
the same time and have been making at least $88k for most
of your working life. There, I did it. I fed the Mighty
Troll Of Anal Retention. Have a cookie.
\_ Thanks for the cookie, but you are still wrong. There
are thousands of scenarios where people who pay the
same amount in get differing amounts out. Your payout
is based on your highest five years of earnings, so
someone who makes 30k/yr his whole life gets less
back than somone who makes 10k/yr his whole life,
except for that 5 year period where he made 100k.
Is this fair? I dunno, maybe you have an opinion.
There is no way to design the system that is not
"unfair" to somebody or other.
\_ As an aside, I think the name "Social Security" should be changed
to "Welfare for Seniors". That way people wouldn't think it was
a retirement plan, we wouldn't have this nonsense about privatizing
it, and people wouldn't think that you should get out an amount
proportional to what you put in. If you're intelligent, lucky,
or thrifty you can prepare for retirement far better than
Social Security. The reason I support SS is that I don't want
to see stupid, unlucky, or spendthrift seniors starving living
in poverty. Finaly, naming it "Welfare for Seniors" would
probably make people realize the stupidity of making SS a
regressive payroll tax.
\_ What's the rationale behind the government providing MANDATORY
retirement plans to all US workers? I can understand rationale
for providing welfare type benefits(Redistrib. of wealth, etc.),
but SS has the guise of a "retirement plan:" you pay in young,
you get back when old. Firstly, anyone with income above $50k
should be able to provide for their own retirement, esp. with
federal tax savings plans like IRA's, Roth IRA's, 401k's, etc.
Secondly, anyone who is forced to live paycheck-to-paycheck
belongs in the poor category eventually, and will end up on
welfare or some other government freebie. |
| 7/9 |
|
| www.calpundit.com/archives/003060.html Via Max Sawicky, it seems that Howard Dean is floating the idea of a cut in Social Security taxes, to be made up by money from the general fund. We cant have a tax cut because because were running a huge deficit and we dont have the money? Well all remember that the next time George Bush proposes a tax cut despite the fact that we have deficits in the general fund as far as the eye can see. Its funny that the tax cut jihadists never seem interested in cutting Social Security taxes, isnt it? And thats despite the fact that Social Security is currently running large surpluses. Of course, a cut in Social Security taxes wouldnt benefit the rich, would it? Posted by Kevin Drum at January 17, 2004 12:09 PM TrackBack Comments We already gave one to those guys at the top though. Posted by: Waffle at January 17, 2004 12:23 PM PERMALINK Just get rid of the payroll tax already, along with corporate taxes and lets finally figure out who we are actually taxing and who we want to pay what percentage and be honest and straightforward about it. Social Security is going to have to be made heavily need based over the next 15-20 years. So lets run it out of the general fund and call contributions what they are taxes. Posted by: MattB at January 17, 2004 12:32 PM PERMALINK Just get rid of the payroll tax already, along with corporate taxes and lets finally figure out who we are actually taxing and who we want to pay what percentage and be honest and straightforward about it. So what interest groups are out there preventing this from happening, and who do they have in their pockets? Posted by: Hari at January 17, 2004 12:51 PM PERMALINK Uh, spc67 Social Security is fine for close to 60 years. Posted by: Rob at January 17, 2004 12:51 PM PERMALINK Uh, spc67 Social Security is fine for close to 60 years. Posted by: spc67 at January 17, 2004 12:56 PM PERMALINK Id also prefer doing away with the regressive payroll tax. Posted by: alias at January 17, 2004 12:58 PM PERMALINK One important thing about the payroll tax - Social Security - that most people do not know, is that after you reach a certain income - $88,000 this year - you dont pay it any more. The largest deduction in most peoples paycheck isnt even paid by people who make more! Yet this money is NOT being set aside in a lockbox and is being used in the general budget - to finance tax cuts for the rich. Posted by: Dave Johnson at January 17, 2004 01:09 PM PERMALINK Its funny that the tax cut jihadists never seem interested in cutting Social Security taxes, isnt it? And thats despite the fact that Social Security is currently running large surpluses. Dont you think that calling people who oppose you politically, jihadists, is completely over the top? I mean, such an overkill either illustrates a complete hatred for your opponents, or a desire to appear PC to your base audience. I find both unappealing, and I think you will also, after some consideration. To me, it merely proves Ann Coulter correct the charges she made against the Left in her book, Slander. Posted by: Poker Player aka Jim at January 17, 2004 01:09 PM PERMALINK Its funny that the tax cut jihadists never seem interested in cutting Social Security taxes, isnt it? And thats despite the fact that Social Security is currently running large surpluses. Maybe because the surpluses are flushed straight into the general fund and always have been? Of course, a cut in Social Security taxes wouldnt benefit the rich, would it? Posted by: InconsistentHeretic at January 17, 2004 01:11 PM PERMALINK Thats not true. Yes, this is when the government has to start paying back some of the HUGE batch of treasury notes that the Social Security surplus has been buying. That money went out as tax cuts to the rich - maybe it is time to get the money to pay those bonds back. Posted by: Dave Johnson at January 17, 2004 01:11 PM PERMALINK So, aka Jim, do you feel the same about those who disparage their opponents as engaging in class warfare? Posted by: bobbyp at January 17, 2004 01:15 PM PERMALINK Are you suggesting defaulting on those bonds? Posted by: spc67 at January 17, 2004 01:18 PM PERMALINK It will be interesting to see what Bushs tax cut proposals will be in the next couple of weeks. Its not exactly a secret that both he and Congressional Republicans are planning additional tax cuts. Posted by: PaulB at January 17, 2004 01:21 PM PERMALINK Poker Player, the term was used to lightheartedly hence italic? No tax cuts proposed by Howard Dean are ever good, because their faith isnt the result of reflection or logic, but rather an infantile emotional attachment to an unexamined idea. Posted by: Scott C at January 17, 2004 01:29 PM PERMALINK The odd thing about this debate is that opposition to funding Social Security out of general revenues has traditionally come from the Democrats. The reasoning was that leaving the payroll tax in place perpetuated the illusion that this was really a form of insurance, which helped maintain political support for the program - while the fear of general revenue funding was that this would make Social Security look like just another welfare payment. Posted by: Poker Player akja Jim at January 17, 2004 01:54 PM PERMALINK Jihad means crusade, usually holy in nature, but not necessary. Referring to Grover Norquist- a man noted for comparing the Estate Tax to the Holocaust and saying he hopes to shrink the federal government to a size small enough to drown in a bathtub- fits well withing that description. Pollak at January 17, 2004 01:57 PM PERMALINK So you think equating them with people who fly airplanes into buildings is fair? Youre the one setting up a straw man and deciding that jihad immediately means al-Qaeda. No offense, but its not Kevins fault that you dont know the definition of the word. Pollak at January 17, 2004 01:59 PM PERMALINK So you think equating them with people who fly airplanes into buildings is fair? Posted by: Boronx at January 17, 2004 02:01 PM PERMALINK Of course you dont cut regressive taxes if you are a Republican. Posted by: BobNJ at January 17, 2004 02:02 PM PERMALINK There is nothing more important in time of spending hundreds of billions in an unnecessary war than cutting taxes. Posted by: MattB at January 17, 2004 02:07 PM PERMALINK ALthough I think Kevins use of it is perfectly reasonable, the word jihadists does have a bit too much baggage. It allows people to attack the use of the word jihadists without saying anything substantive. Gets the idea across without the same baggage, although its not as colorful. Your ridiculous asssertion that Jihidst Al Queda terrorist is wrong, stupid, and a little bit racist. Posted by: Timothy Klein at January 17, 2004 02:12 PM PERMALINK And your a small bit misinformed, Timothy, and perhaps stupid, but since calling people stupid and racist at the drop of a hat, or in the course of a minor disagreement, appears to a trademark of the far Left, I wont do so. I will note that Ann Coulter undoubtedly thanks all of you for proving her correct, again. Words have meanings, but those meanings change over the years, and for various reasons. No one would call someone a jihadist in a tax cut discussion a few years back. Its use at all would have been unusal unless tied directly to a holy war by Moslems. Sure, progressives can cut taxes too, well just cut regressive payroll taxes. Its not a problem that a couple percentage points added to the top bracket cant solve. Of course, we could also make SS a flat tax and take away the upper income limits on it. Posted by: Another Bruce at January 17, 2004 03:26 PM PERMALINK Perhaps that should be tax cut crusaders. Gets the idea across without the same baggage, although its not as colorful. Posted by: Another Bruce at January 17, 2004 03:41 PM PERMALINK Jihad is a term used to typify any type of crusade. Imams have considered themselves on jihads against poverty, lack of educational opportunity, and community , various Middle Eastern leaders have considered themselves on jihads against embargoes, proliferation agreement, and oil contracts. Its also been used remarkably frequently since it became common parlance to determine fierce devotio... |
| csua.org/u/5mh -> www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/10/dean_confirms_tax_cut_plan_but_gives_no_details/ Payroll taxes are those used to fund Social Security and Medicare, and the majority of Americans pay more in such levies than in income tax. One Dean adviser said the plan might involve providing an income tax credit to middle-income taxpayers to offset some payroll taxes. In an interview with the Globe in his campaign van, Dean addressed a rising chorus of criticism from some of his chief rivals over his changing his position on taxes. For months, Dean has called for repealing all of President Bushs tax cuts. Clark - who advocate rolling back the tax cuts only on those earning more than $200,000 - to say that Dean would be in effect raising taxes on the middle class. Now, after learning earlier this week that Dean was moving toward a middle-class tax relief package, some of Deans rivals have been saying he made a politically calculated flip-flop. We are going to do something and its going to have to do with the payroll tax, but we havent worked it out yet, Dean said. Asked whether it was fair to voters in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary for him to campaign without explaining such an important proposal, he replied, Well, they are going to know that Im a fiscal conservative and that Im going to balance the budget. That is the most important thing for them to know and they should know that while we intend to revamp the tax code, balancing the budget comes first. I cant give them any more details than that because we dont have them. The Globe reported earlier this week that Deans economic advisers had unanimously recommended that Dean adopt some kind of middle-income tax relief package. Some of the advisers were concerned that Dean would be especially hurt in a general election if he is attacked by Bush for raising taxes by $2,000 on a family earning $73,000. When asked yesterday why he has delayed a detailed announcement, he said, I havent been able to talk to the policy people in a while and I wont until after Feb. Deans policy director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, called the Globe at 8 pm to make what he called an addition to Deans statement. Ben-Ami said it is always possible that Dean would pick an option other than payroll taxes as a vehicle to provide middle-income relief. The governor is clearly weighing the options, but no final decision has been made, Ben-Ami said. Without the details of Deans proposal, it is difficult to analyze it. But the main controversy about any proposal to cut the payroll tax revolves around the question of whether such a cut would drain revenues from the Social Security Trust Fund, which is financed by payroll taxes. Dean stressed that he didnt want to any reduction in payroll taxes to take funds away from Social Security. Thus, he said that he would get around that problem by using money from general revenues to make up for all the money lost under a payroll tax cut. While Dean said he couldnt provide more details, an aide who talked about the idea with the former Vermont governor said one idea is to provide an income tax credit for payroll taxes paid by people in certain income groups. In that scenario, a worker would essentially be reimbursed through the federal income tax code for some funds taken out of his or her paycheck for Social Security. The adviser, who said the campaign did not want him to speak on the record, said that would satisfy Deans requirement that a cut in payroll taxes not result in a decline in funds for Social Security. But the idea of financing tax relief to the middle class through general revenues was promptly ridiculed by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative Republican strategist who has close ties to the White House. Norquist and the White House favor a plan under which workers could take a percentage of the payroll taxes they pay and instead invest it in the stock market. President Bush has not done much to push that idea, which some consider a partial privatization of Social Security. Some politicians who have advocated a reform of the payroll tax system have suggested another method in which wealthier workers would pay more for Social Security benefits. Currently, the Social Security tax is collected is on the first $87,900 of income. As critics have long noted, that means that someone earning that amount pays the same Social Security payroll tax as Microsofts Bill Gates. But Dean said that he was against raising the cap as a method of financing a tax cut. Dean said he would consider raising it only if he was convinced that more money was needed to support Social Security. Although the payroll tax doesnt get much mention in political debate, it has a deep impact on most taxpayers. The Tax Policy Center, which analyzes taxes with the Brookings Institution think tank, reported that 74 percent of all tax filers paid more in payroll taxes than in income taxes. The payroll taxes are typically withheld by the employer, so many people may not realize the size of the payroll tax levy. Another major issue regarding the payroll tax is that some critics believe it is too regressive. For example, a filer earning between $40,000 and $50,000 pays 122 percent of his income in payroll taxes and 85 percent in income taxes, according to a study by the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, a worker earning more than $500,000 pays 35 percent of income in payroll taxes, and 273 percent in income taxes. Workers pay 62 percent of their wages to Social Security, and employers paying another 62 percent, and both employees and employers pay a Medicare tax of 145 percent on all wages, with no cap, according to figures provided by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. |