noob social security question -

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
How utterly disingenuous and deceptive, charrison, comparing WW2 debts to the situation today. It was a do or die situation, where losing would nullify the debt, anyway... You also fail to recognize that taxes on the top incomes were extremely high for many years afterwards, the top marginal rate being over 90%, reduced to ~60% in the Kennedy taxcuts of the early 60's....


Not being disingenious at all. Granted WWII budgets caused massive borrowing and sent our debt to GDP ratio to 140%. That is not the comparison I was out to make. Many normal budgets once adjusted for inflation and gdp come out far more unbalanced than the current admin.

Your right after WWII the top marginal rate was 90%(JFK dropped it to 70%) and today it is 35%. Even thought the right(the very people you hate) are paying taxes at a lower marginal, their share of income taxes paid have gone up. High tax rates only encourage those with money to hide their wealth. The top 10% of income earner pay about 40% of all income taxes, the top 50% paying 96% of all income taxes. What share do you think the rich should pay? all of it?





Shame on ya, pal, for thinking that would fly, or for actually believing it. Shame on the pundits who formulated such a lame argument, as well. Republicans screamed and whined for a balanced budget for 20 years- but now that it's in their power to achieve it, they'd rather cut taxes for those who don't need them, feed the military/security industrial complex, hand out pork like it was on fire to their friends in big pharma, big agra, big timber, and big oil. They were also the advocates of smaller government, too, but have presided over the biggest growth of govt in recent history. And yet they have the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to claim that SS is some kind of a "crisis", try to create enough of a diversion that the looting can continue.

and meanwhile the democrats lauch sounds bits against such spending, but happily vote for the spending. This is what happens when 50% pays for 96% of the income taxes, the other 1/2 that pays only 4% of the taxes votes to pick the pockets of the other half. This is why we have unbalanced budgets and until we have a flatter tax code with more people paying for goverment we are going to continue to run up debt.




We're living the biggest financial boondoggle in the history of the world, and some of us are cheering the perps, falling for the illusions of charlatans and conmen whose pitches have been perfected with 30 years of concentrated effort in the Right-think tanks of America...


Completely false, as i said before there have been far worse budgets once you adjust for inflation and GD{.

The whole thing boggles the mind... words fail me.[/quote]

Given that logic and math fails you, I am not surprised.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh.

Lots of projection and false attribution in your post, fingolfin269. I said that folks at the top didn't need taxcuts when Bush came into office, and I'll stand by that. Ill go even further, claim that they didn't need taxcuts when Reagan came into office, either.

Might want to reference this link-

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in400h.pdf

Prior to the Bush taxcuts, America's 400 largest reported taxable incomes averaged ~$160M in 2000, on which they paid ~22.3% federal tax, a very small % in SS taxes, and another very small % in state and local taxes. That federal income tax rate is the same as a single guy making ~$125K, taking a standard deduction, except that guy also paid ~10% in SS taxes, and a much higher % of income in other taxes, as well... over 1000X the income, yet paying a lower total tax rate... That's what's ridiculous, and what the rightwing is trying so desperately to conceal. In a nation of 130M tax returns, it's easy for the truly wealthy to hide in the top 1%, which is what's really happening, and these same folks are doing even better after the Bush taxcuts, a lot better.... They were paying considerably higher taxes in 1980, and were somehow still getting richer all the while...

Try looking at it from the other side, where those same folks are manipulating the political climate, the media, and finances of the govt towards collapse, and towards default on SS, a program that the vast majority of working Americans have contributed towards their entire adult lives.

And you might want to consider just how much you'd personally be willing to pay in taxes to arrive at what is obviously a very favorable and fortunate bottom line- how about 40% of $20M? Would you feel cheated, exploited, deprived? Hardly. You'd still have $12M, which is several times more than the average earner will take home in a lifetime... Would you be arrogant enough to claim that you were so much smarter and had worked so much harder than the average guy that you deserved to pay a lower total tax rate? You would, indeed, if you were one of the major contributors to the thinktanks that have formulated the claptrap passing for economic theory on the Right in American politics... you surely would...

The rich already pay most of the federal income tax, Ig uess you want them to pay it all?

 

[mhillary]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Scrap SS if you're not going to do anything else with it. It's theft of money.

How come?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: mhillary

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Scrap SS if you're not going to do anything else with it. It's theft of money.

How come?

Go to OT

 

[Jhhnn]

First off, charrison, you are, as is common in rightwing circles, attempting to define federal income tax in a vacuum, as if no other taxes exist. which is patently unfair and illusory. When all taxes are taken in aggregate, Americans pay, across the board, very much the same total tax rate on their incomes, other than those at the very top, who pay less.

You also fall for the usual misinformation about the percentiles, about what tax information and statistics really mean. Most of the people in the top 1% aren't "rich" or "wealthy" at all, they're merely well off. They depend on their paychecks just like the rest of us, given their tendency to live large. You have to talk about the top .1% to even approach an accurate definition of wealthy, or even the top .01%... people for whom tax breaks and various exclusions are specifically designed, hand crafted by their congressional friends- these are the patrones of the political arts, particularly as practiced on the far right. Normal flat or regressive taxes won't touch their huge incomes- sales and excise taxes don't comprise a significant portion of their incomes, nor do various other fees and levies... their SS contributions are no greater than somebody making $90K.

I'd contend that the progressivity of the current system kicks in too early, and then drops out, regresses, at the point where it should become more progressive. The stats posted, from the IRS, are merely illustrative of a larger problem, one that extends somewhat further down the scale. The effects of changes to the taxcode over the last 25 years have been profound- as the top 1% share of income has doubled, their share of tax contributions has risen only ~50%, most of the gains going to those at the top of that group, and most of the burden falling on those at the bottom of it... It's not rocket science to see that another 25 years of the same sort of policies, accelerated by the Bush taxcut phenomenon, will allow the top 1% to obtain ~40% of total income- that's a third world distribution pattern, with all that such a distribution really means...

You offer no references wrt your contention that past budgets have been worse, and hedge with references to total gdp and inflation. You also choose to disregard the effects of prolonged deficits vs anomalies, and probably aren't prepared to admit that the only examples you could actually reference were under the Reagan/Bush1 admins, who started this whole process of theft. Nor will you even begin to recognize the huge % difference between current revenues and outlays, which are among history's worst- 1/3 of all non-SS expenditures are made on borrowed money.

All of which threatens the fiscal integrity of the government, and the ability of that entity to honor the full faith and credit of obligations to the SS trust, which today's so-called reformers are desperately hoping none of us will notice until it's too late.

Your reference to hiding wealth because of high tax rates is also specious- they'll do it anyway, at any tax rate. I'ts not the penalty that deters crime, it's the relative risk of being caught. Keeping that in mind, you might want to note that Earned Income Filers have an audit rate 10X greater than the top 1% under current IRS practice- the chances of getting caught for those at the top are almost nil...

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: charrison

Your right after WWII the top marginal rate was 90%(JFK dropped it to 70%) and today it is 35%. Even thought the right(the very people you hate) are paying taxes at a lower marginal, their share of income taxes paid have gone up.

Have you ever asked yourself how this is mathematically possible, charrison? If, I as a rich person am paying more of the tax bill than you as a poor person even though my marginal rate relative to yours has gone down, then the only way that's possible is if the income gap between me and you has increased by a larger percentage then the reduction in marginal rates. The divide between the rich and the poor has increased. That in itself isn't neccesarily a horrible thing as long as everyones standard of living is still increasing, but it does cast doubt on the need to give additional tax breaks to the rich. They seem to be doing quite fine and a better use of that money would be to get the US financial house in order. Just because we have been in worse shape before doesn't mean its a good idea now. How can we seriously criticise ourselves as a country whose people won't save money when our own government spends more than it takes in year after year? (This is bipartisan too by the way. not pointing fingers specifically at either party. they both do it.)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
First off, charrison, you are, as is common in rightwing circles, attempting to define federal income tax in a vacuum, as if no other taxes exist. which is patently unfair and illusory. When all taxes are taken in aggregate, Americans pay, across the board, very much the same total tax rate on their incomes, other than those at the very top, who pay less.

In the end, the rich still pay the bulk of the taxes, federal, state and local included.



You also fall for the usual misinformation about the percentiles, about what tax information and statistics really mean. Most of the people in the top 1% aren't "rich" or "wealthy" at all, they're merely well off. They depend on their paychecks just like the rest of us, given their tendency to live large. You have to talk about the top .1% to even approach an accurate definition of wealthy, or even the top .01%... people for whom tax breaks and various exclusions are specifically designed, hand crafted by their congressional friends- these are the patrones of the political arts, particularly as practiced on the far right. Normal flat or regressive taxes won't touch their huge incomes- sales and excise taxes don't comprise a significant portion of their incomes, nor do various other fees and levies... their SS contributions are no greater than somebody making $90K.


Once again railing against the rich who pay the bulk of the taxes. Remember the AMT(alternative minimum tax) was setup to go after 150 of the richest people, now affects million and rapidly affecting more and more people in the middle tax. This is what going after super rich gets us, more taxes for everyone. The rich payroll taxes included still pay the bulk of taxes.

I'd contend that the progressivity of the current system kicks in too early, and then drops out, regresses, at the point where it should become more progressive. The stats posted, from the IRS, are merely illustrative of a larger problem, one that extends somewhat further down the scale. The effects of changes to the taxcode over the last 25 years have been profound- as the top 1% share of income has doubled, their share of tax contributions has risen only ~50%, most of the gains going to those at the top of that group, and most of the burden falling on those at the bottom of it... It's not rocket science to see that another 25 years of the same sort of policies, accelerated by the Bush taxcut phenomenon, will allow the top 1% to obtain ~40% of total income- that's a third world distribution pattern, with all that such a distribution really means...


would you be happier with the top 50% paying 98% of all income taxes rathern than 96%. What should be the share paid by the rich as there is not much room to increase it.





You offer no references wrt your contention that past budgets have been worse, and hedge with references to total gdp and inflation. You also choose to disregard the effects of prolonged deficits vs anomalies, and probably aren't prepared to admit that the only examples you could actually reference were under the Reagan/Bush1 admins, who started this whole process of theft. Nor will you even begin to recognize the huge % difference between current revenues and outlays, which are among history's worst- 1/3 of all non-SS expenditures are made on borrowed money.


The current bush admin peak with defecits at 3.6%(as i recall) of GDP.

The wonderful clinton years
1993 3.9%of GDP
1994 2.9% of GDP

I expect you to say this was the economy he inherited from bush sr, However I know you wont give the same understanding to the currert admin

The previous recession peaked at 4.7% of GDP under Bush sr.

1985 Reagan with Democratic congress that increased every spending bill that reagan proposed 5.1% of GDP


1978 the wonderful carter admin( I assume all 3 branches were under democrat control)
4.2% of GDP


The same thing can be done by adjusting these budgets to inflation. There is enough blame to go around, but you are far to partisan to do that.

linkage

[/quote]

All of which threatens the fiscal integrity of the government, and the ability of that entity to honor the full faith and credit of obligations to the SS trust, which today's so-called reformers are desperately hoping none of us will notice until it's too late.



What are the long term effects?
The economy is still strong, interest rates low, low unemployment, high home ownership...

previous debt:gdp peak 1993(clinton) was 49% of GDP. The internet fueled by a bubble economy reduced it 33% in 2001 and as of 2002 it is 34.3.

Whe are no where near crisis stated and I know for a fact no one was crying about 49% of GDP in 1993.



Your reference to hiding wealth because of high tax rates is also specious- they'll do it anyway, at any tax rate. I'ts not the penalty that deters crime, it's the relative risk of being caught. Keeping that in mind, you might want to note that Earned Income Filers have an audit rate 10X greater than the top 1% under current IRS practice- the chances of getting caught for those at the top are almost nil...[/quote]



THe higher the tax rate the more people will hide their money. It is called the laffer curve as $0 in taxes are collected at 100% rate and 0% rate. The optimial tax rate is somewhere in the middle. As the rich are paying a larger share of tax it appears the optimal rate is far closer the to the current 35% than the 90% you would prefer.

 

[Jhhnn]

charrison-

Still trying to look at federal income taxes in a vacuum...

Still trying to deny the long term effects of current income distribution trends... and that truly progressive federal income taxes are the only form of economic self defense available to the middle and working class.

Still denying the marginal utility of money...

Still trying to ignore the inevitable effect of perpetual debt accumulation in excess of real gdp growth...

Still denying that the 1993 budget was formulated and approved during the Bush1 tenure...

Still denying that ultra lax tax enforcement on high incomes is Republican policy...

Still denying that the whole senario will result in, uhh, "restructuring" the repayment of SS obligations from an "as needed" basis to something along the lines of a 99 year schedule... effectively confiscating the trust fund, raising the effective tax rate on all incomes below the SS cap by ~4% over the entire timeframe in which the trust provided a surplus to the general fund...

The Laffer curve? It's a joke. While substantial taxcuts will result in the sudden declaration of some income previously hidden, the effect is transitory, as we saw in the early 80's, simply because of what I previously stated- the chances of getting caught are near zero for those of extreme wealth, and the penalties non-existent, so they'll cheat at any tax rate above zero... and there's no empirical evidence that the US has ever been on the point of the theoretical curve where the effect you describe would actually occur- quite to the contrary-

http://www.economist.com/research/Econo...lphabetic.cfm?TERM=LEVERAGED%20BUY-OUT

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
charrison-

Still trying to look at federal income taxes in a vacuum...


Nope, but you are still denying the rich pay most of the taxes at the federal state, state and local levels.




Still trying to deny the long term effects of current income distribution trends... and that truly progressive federal income taxes are the only form of economic self defense available to the middle and working class.

A more progressive tax sctructure would lead to higher debts as fewer and fewer pay taxes, yet receive more benefits.




Still denying the marginal utility of money...

Not sure what you are getting at.



Still trying to ignore the inevitable effect of perpetual debt accumulation in excess of real gdp growth...

However it appears we continue to grow faster than our debt load



Still denying that the 1993 budget was formulated and approved during the Bush1 tenure...

And the 92 budget was passed by a democratic congress and senate. THe 94 budget was all clinton and still was still large as well. You partisanship is showing


Still denying that ultra lax tax enforcement on high incomes is Republican policy...
I guess that is why their share in taxes have gone up....

Still denying that the whole senario will result in, uhh, "restructuring" the repayment of SS obligations from an "as needed" basis to something along the lines of a 99 year schedule... effectively confiscating the trust fund, raising the effective tax rate on all incomes below the SS cap by ~4% over the entire timeframe in which the trust provided a surplus to the general fund...



Actually I am the one that is advocating private account to keep this and future congresses from raiding SS funds. You are the one that is advocating the status quo where congress has to spend the surpluses and replace them with IOUs that later must be paid out of taxes at likely the cost of higher payroll taxes. You know that payroll taxes that you think are too regressive.



The Laffer curve? It's a joke. While substantial taxcuts will result in the sudden declaration of some income previously hidden, the effect is transitory, as we saw in the early 80's, simply because of what I previously stated- the chances of getting caught are near zero for those of extreme wealth, and the penalties non-existent, so they'll cheat at any tax rate above zero... and there's no empirical evidence that the US has ever been on the point of the theoretical curve where the effect you describe would actually occur- quite to the contrary-

[/b]

The empirical evidence is the rich are paying more at a lower marginal rates. It happend when kennedy lowered the rate from 90 to 70, when reagan lowered it from 70 to 35 and again when bush lowered it back to 35. The same thing happened in sweden after they lowered the top rate from 90 to 60%. To deny this is foolish.

[/b]


http://www.economist.com/research/Econo...lphabetic.cfm?TERM=LEVERAGED%20BUY-OUT

Open those partisan eyes for once...