The Answer Isn't Socialism; It's Capitalism That Better Spreads the Benefits

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
stopped reading at "increase earned income tax credit." i believe in social programs but i stop at people MAKING money off their tax returns. nope. biggest scam ever. EVERYONE pays some percent. even if its a small percentage, you should be forced to contribute SOMETHING.

Everyone contributes something. Why do people so consistently fall for the canard that poor people don't pay taxes just because they don't pay income taxes? There are many other kids of taxes that they most certainly pay.

So with that in mind, you will be happy to hear that the poor do pay a small percentage, and are forced to contribute something.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Everyone contributes something. Why do people so consistently fall for the canard that poor people don't pay taxes just because they don't pay income taxes? There are many other kids of taxes that they most certainly pay.

So with that in mind, you will be happy to hear that the poor do pay a small percentage, and are forced to contribute something.

Depending on your income and children you could easily get back more than you would ever pay in sales tax.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
Depending on your income and children you could easily get back more than you would ever pay in sales tax.

Between payroll taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes either directly paid for or indirectly paid for through rent, permits, etc, etc. it is unlikely that someone is a net recipient of funds through tax policy. It may not be impossible, but it is far from normal.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Between payroll taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes either directly paid for or indirectly paid for through rent, permits, etc, etc. it is unlikely that someone is a net recipient of funds through tax policy. It may not be impossible, but it is far from normal.

So as long as you count payroll taxes and property taxes you are not paying you may not end up as a net recipient of funds.

It certainly is easy to up your tax burden when you count taxes other people are paying :\
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
So as long as you count payroll taxes and property taxes you are not paying you may not end up as a net recipient of funds.

It certainly is easy to up your tax burden when you count taxes other people are paying :\

Do you know what payroll taxes are?

EDIT: And are you seriously trying to say that property taxes aren't factored into rents?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
stopped reading at "increase earned income tax credit." i believe in social programs but i stop at people MAKING money off their tax returns. nope. biggest scam ever. EVERYONE pays some percent. even if its a small percentage, you should be forced to contribute SOMETHING.

That's fine for 'everyone to contribute', but to go with that we need some guarantees that the prosperity of the country is shared to all as well.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Do you know what payroll taxes are?

EDIT: And are you seriously trying to say that property taxes aren't factored into rents?

The business is required to pay the tax irrespective to whether an individual is renting or not.

Payroll taxes are divided 50-50 between the Company and Employee. Maybe we should start counting taxes on Corporate profits as a tax on the employees as well? :colbert:
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
That's fine for 'everyone to contribute', but to go with that we need some guarantees that the prosperity of the country is shared to all as well.

Then we need some guarantees that people are making good life decisions as well. If you drop out of high school and pop out a baby at 17 you cant demand your "fair share" of prosperity just because you happen to live in the US.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,326
6,038
126
Do you know what payroll taxes are?

EDIT: And are you seriously trying to say that property taxes aren't factored into rents?

Sincerity isn't the real issue as he has an observable brain defect. He can't be serious or not serious because his thinking is defective. He can't rise to the level where conscious choice becomes an issue. This is a person who will believe in what he was fed long after it becomes obvious that view is hopeless. He will change only when HE is ready and that probably won't happen. Change requires acknowledgment and he's not going to do that. Death is too far away from his consciousness. Wait till his daughter has a girl she can't afford so he can turn her from his door.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
The business is required to pay the tax irrespective to whether an individual is renting or not.

What's your point? Businesses are required to pay taxes on sales they make regardless of whether or not they collect sales tax from the consumer at the point of sale. That in no way makes the money the customer pays in addition to the sale somehow not their contribution.

Or did you need a specific line item in your rent bill that says "property tax" for it to count? Silliness.

Payroll taxes are divided 50-50 between the Company and Employee. Maybe we should start counting taxes on Corporate profits as a tax on the employees as well? :colbert:

I'm glad to see you're catching on. Nowhere did I claim the payroll taxes being paid by the employer were counted as taxes paid by the employee (although they likely result in some decreased compensation). You were trying to discount payroll taxes for absolutely no reason in order to prop up a point that was obviously wrong. I hope you understand this better now and won't make the same mistake in the future.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
What's your point? Businesses are required to pay taxes on sales they make regardless of whether or not they collect sales tax from the consumer at the point of sale. That in no way makes the money the customer pays in addition to the sale somehow not their contribution.

Or did you need a specific line item in your rent bill that says "property tax" for it to count? Silliness.

I'm glad to see you're catching on. Nowhere did I claim the payroll taxes being paid by the employer were counted as taxes paid by the employee (although they likely result in some decreased compensation). You were trying to discount payroll taxes for absolutely no reason in order to prop up a point that was obviously wrong. I hope you understand this better now and won't make the same mistake in the future.

I never got a bill for rent. I was always just told to pay $xxx/month.

The difference is if there is no sale there is no sales tax. Whereas they pay property tax even if they collect no rent.

Well sorry, but another person posted a link that was claiming Employer paid FICA taxes as employee paid. I have no problem count the employee paid side. But when you can get back >$5,000 for the EITC it takes an awfully large amount of FICA to counteract that. Not to mention that FICA is basically a progressively weighted annuity/disability insurance program.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
I never got a bill for rent. I was always just told to pay $xxx/month.

The difference is if there is no sale there is no sales tax. Whereas they pay property tax even if they collect no rent.

Well sorry, but another person posted a link that was claiming Employer paid FICA taxes as employee paid. I have no problem count the employee paid side. But when you can get back >$5,000 for the EITC it takes an awfully large amount of FICA to counteract that. Not to mention that FICA is basically a progressively weighted annuity/disability insurance program.

First of all, FICA generates absolutely no obligation on the part of the government to pay you any annuity or disability. It is a tax, period. There is absolutely no difference as to the presence or absence of sales. You as the renter of a property, much as with the purchase of a good, are paying more in that transaction to cover taxation of the good you are purchasing, be it an apartment to live in or an ipod. Why we would elect not to count those contributions to taxation as taxes is beyond me.

Basically you're arguing that if the city ups property tax by $1200 a year and the apartment owner raises your rent by $100 a month to cover it, it counts as the owner paying $1,200 more a year in taxes and you paying nothing. That's absurd.

Regardless, this all comes back to the faulty idea that there are large segments of the population who don't contribute at all to the tax base. This is simply untrue. There is a large portion of the population that does not pay income taxes, but that is not at all the same thing as not paying taxes.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Between payroll taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes either directly paid for or indirectly paid for through rent, permits, etc, etc. it is unlikely that someone is a net recipient of funds through tax policy. It may not be impossible, but it is far from normal.

I wouldn't count indirect taxes being paid because then any tax you pay directly can be indirectly credited to your employer.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
I wouldn't count indirect taxes being paid because then any tax you pay directly can be indirectly credited to your employer.

Okay, don't count property taxes (although I still find that silly). My point stands.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
First of all, FICA generates absolutely no obligation on the part of the government to pay you any annuity or disability. It is a tax, period. There is absolutely no difference as to the presence or absence of sales. You as the renter of a property, much as with the purchase of a good, are paying more in that transaction to cover taxation of the good you are purchasing, be it an apartment to live in or an ipod. Why we would elect not to count those contributions to taxation as taxes is beyond me.

Basically you're arguing that if the city ups property tax by $1200 a year and the apartment owner raises your rent by $100 a month to cover it, it counts as the owner paying $1,200 more a year in taxes and you paying nothing. That's absurd.

Regardless, this all comes back to the faulty idea that there are large segments of the population who don't contribute at all to the tax base. This is simply untrue. There is a large portion of the population that does not pay income taxes, but that is not at all the same thing as not paying taxes.

And yes Social Security benefits are determined by how much you pay in. That is a fact.

I think it is absurd to claim that someone who does not own property is paying property tax :\
 

momeNt

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2011
9,297
352
126
And yes Social Security benefits are determined by how much you pay in. That is a fact.

I think it is absurd to claim that someone who does not own property is paying property tax :\

Taxes are passed through because property owners will not be taking losses so you don't have to have your rent raised when property taxes increase.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
And yes Social Security benefits are determined by how much you pay in. That is a fact.

I think it is absurd to claim that someone who does not own property is paying property tax :\

And yet someone who isn't selling anything is paying sales tax. How absurd.

Your Social Security benefits are (to a point) determined by how much you pay in. If the government chose to do so however, they could pay you less than that or nothing. The government is not legally obligated to give you a single cent and can revoke those payments at any time.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Taxes are passed through because property owners will not be taking losses so you don't have to have your rent raised when property taxes increase.

But you have to pay the property tax even if you dont have a renter.

Sales tax is only paid when a sale is made.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
If we are to believe that taxes on businesses are passed through to the consumer, than all such taxes are inherently regressive.

But yet I dont see liberals calling for the elimination of say corporate income taxes?

Dont they care about the poor :\
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
And yet someone who isn't selling anything is paying sales tax. How absurd.

Your Social Security benefits are (to a point) determined by how much you pay in. If the government chose to do so however, they could pay you less than that or nothing. The government is not legally obligated to give you a single cent and can revoke those payments at any time.

So its a revocable annuity :\. Sounds like an argument for eliminating it. Then we could eliminate the burden of a horrible regressive tax on the poor.

But yet somehow, I dont think liberals would say eliminating social security is a benefit to the poor... I wonder why? :hmm:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
So its a revocable annuity :\. Sounds like an argument for eliminating it. Then we could eliminate the burden of a horrible regressive tax on the poor.

But yet somehow, I dont think liberals would say eliminating social security is a benefit to the poor... I wonder why? :hmm:

Now you're trying to change the argument to one you think you have a better chance of winning. I would like to think that this thread would put to rest the ridiculous idea that there are large numbers of people in the US who don't contribute to tax revenues somehow I doubt it.
 

jstern01

Senior member
Mar 25, 2010
532
0
71
So its a revocable annuity :\. Sounds like an argument for eliminating it. Then we could eliminate the burden of a horrible regressive tax on the poor.

But yet somehow, I dont think liberals would say eliminating social security is a benefit to the poor... I wonder why? :hmm:

Man, were you born stupid or raised that way. Definition of revocable annuity -contract can be surrendered and the funds in the account withdrawn. SSI in no way guarantees you your money back if they eliminate. It is not a revocable annuity. Please stop throwing out these terms without understanding what the hell you are talking about. In fact please stop replying because your reasoning is so seriously flawed as to call into question your sanity.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
"The only way the rich got rich is with those tax cuts?" Are you joking? You're saying we didn't have fabulously wealthy people in the country, and in fact, loads of them, before the Reagan era tax cuts?

Reich's premise is exactly correct here. By taking some money from the rich, which money is idling out of circulation, and giving it to the poor, who will spend it all, you grow the economy, because the economy IS based on consumer spending. He's also correct that in that scenario, the rich take a smaller piece of a bigger pie. I'm not sure he's correct that on net they do better. They may do a little better or a little worse. However, the middle class, who are employed in the design, production, marketing, and sales of those goods and services, does better. Increasing the size of the pie is a good thing, and it isn't accomplished with hoarded capital.

- wolf
The rich's money is by and large NOT out of circulation. It's invested in stocks - which is how companies finance expansion and capitalize projects. It's invested in bonds - which is how various governments (and to an extent, very large companies) capitalize projects. It's invested in interest-bearing accounts - which interest is generated from the profits of loaning that excess capital to people and companies who then pay it back with interest. These things are how a capitalistic nation grows and prospers. You (and Reich) want to replace the people whose future depends on wise decisions with government employees whose future is entirely independent of the wisdom of their decisions. There is a big reason why Solyndra went to the federal government rather than to private venture capitalists or banks - their business model did not stand up to the scrutiny of those whose own money or jobs depended on it.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
And yes Social Security benefits are determined by how much you pay in. That is a fact.
I think it is absurd to claim that someone who does not own property is paying property tax :\


If you read and understood he said the SSA fica is a tax... it is a tax... Current law mandates folks who meet the criteria will be paid based on earnings that were taxed as fica. Laws change.... And Congress is toying with that exact notion atm.

Regarding the second para....

Do you really really really not think that property owners consider all of their costs and their expected return in computing the rent they charge? Renters do not pay the bill but they reimburse the owner for it along with his debt service and maintenance and everything else... And often when a business leases space the property tax amount is estimated and the business receives an additional bill for the overage the owner pays along with water, sewer and, etc...