Why is it shocking that the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax?

No, that is not the compact given by social security law. There is no such compact. You have zero right to future social security payments. None. Zero.

You may or may not gain access to those future revenues, but there is no contract or compact that guarantees it to you. Your access to those funds could be cut off completely and entirely with a single vote in congress tomorrow - and you would have zero legal recourse.

if, on the other hand, the same happened to your 401K or your IRA, you would have legal recourse.

No, you are paying a specific amount into the general fund so that current recipients can receive a benefit that congress grants them. You have no claim on future revenues. None.

So you're saying that structurally Social Security is not an insurance policy nor an investment plan correct?

structurally, it is run a bit like an insurance company. Revenues enter the system and some of those are used to pay current claims. any revenues remaining after paying current claims are invested.

In a traditional insurance company, current payees have a contractual right to those invested funds in future periods. Social Security is a bit different because:

1. By law, it must invest those funds in special treasury obligations. What makes those obligations "special" is that Congress is under no obligation to pay them.

Now isn't that special?

2. By law, no current payee has any contractual right to future revenues.

(as for investment plans, no - it's nothing at all like a personal investment plan)

The problem is that the language we use to talk about SS is quite disassociated from what SS actually is.

Agreed.

In my opinion it should be welfare for seniors funded by current taxes on employees plus any previous surplus. If it were targeted that way, lower incomes could be exempt and higher incomes taxed. However, the needs would be much lower so the tax rates would also drastically go down for nearly everyone. It perhaps could go up slightly for those on the tip top of the income scale.

Now the real question: Why won't that ever happen?
 
structurally, it is run a bit like an insurance company. Revenues enter the system and some of those are used to pay current claims. any revenues remaining after paying current claims are invested.

In a traditional insurance company, current payees have a contractual right to those invested funds in future periods. Social Security is a bit different because:

1. By law, it must invest those funds in special treasury obligations. What makes those obligations "special" is that Congress is under no obligation to pay them.

Now isn't that special?

2. By law, no current payee has any contractual right to future revenues.

(as for investment plans, no - it's nothing at all like a personal investment plan)

The problem is that the language we use to talk about SS is quite disassociated from what SS actually is.

In more of a laymans terms...and not to sound like a conspiracist..

It is like a ponzi scheme...

The money they take in now is useed to pay people who they took money from in the past....and as the system is right now....there is going to be a time where SOMEONE put in money and there will be no more revenue to give that money back to them.

Oh, I'm a layman Jarhead. My wife reminds me of just how ordinary and unexceptional I am every day!

But yes, your description seems accurate enough to me. That's not to say I completely oppose SS, it's just to say that we should all be more aware of what it is - and what it very much is not.

Mind if I ask?
Whats that all about?
My wife reminds me daily how I should compliment her beauty and value to me.
But when I ask for the same?
Nada.

Just a few weeks back....I said to her:

"You know, I am starting to look old"

Her response?

"So am I"...

If I responded with anything less than "are you crazy? You dont look old" I waould be a dead man.

But her? She can agree and simply say "so do I"...and then complain that I didnt say "no you dont"

Thinks she is getting back at me for that one time she asked me if a pair of pants made her butt look big and said to her "dont blame the pants"?

Ya think?
 
So you're saying that structurally Social Security is not an insurance policy nor an investment plan correct?

structurally, it is run a bit like an insurance company. Revenues enter the system and some of those are used to pay current claims. any revenues remaining after paying current claims are invested.

In a traditional insurance company, current payees have a contractual right to those invested funds in future periods. Social Security is a bit different because:

1. By law, it must invest those funds in special treasury obligations. What makes those obligations "special" is that Congress is under no obligation to pay them.

Now isn't that special?

2. By law, no current payee has any contractual right to future revenues.

(as for investment plans, no - it's nothing at all like a personal investment plan)

The problem is that the language we use to talk about SS is quite disassociated from what SS actually is.

Agreed.

In my opinion it should be welfare for seniors funded by current taxes on employees plus any previous surplus. If it were targeted that way, lower incomes could be exempt and higher incomes taxed. However, the needs would be much lower so the tax rates would also drastically go down for nearly everyone. It perhaps could go up slightly for those on the tip top of the income scale.

Now the real question: Why won't that ever happen?

This is a fine example of an endangered species on message boards: after a long discussion, I agree with your assessment, almost entirely.

Unfortunately, the vested interests and special interest groups will never let it happen.
 
Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

Except taxes are on income, not wealth. Stored wealth has already been taxed once (or twice). The top 1% of income earners pay way more than their corresponding share of total income.
This is the level of stupidity the GOP spin machine depends on!!!

Unrealized capital gains is not taxed at all, not once and not twice.

For example, if you have $1 million in stock and it doubles to $2 million, the 1$ in capital gains is not taxed at all until it is realized. If you sell the $2 million the $1 million in cap gains is taxed for the first time and the $1 million you paid for the stock is not taxed.

Now you please explain how any of that $2 million got taxed twice!!!!!!!
I won't hold my breath for your reply.
 
Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

Except taxes are on income, not wealth. Stored wealth has already been taxed once (or twice). The top 1% of income earners pay way more than their corresponding share of total income.
This is the level of stupidity the GOP spin machine depends on!!!

Unrealized capital gains is not taxed at all, not once and not twice.

For example, if you have $1 million in stock and it doubles to $2 million, the 1$ in capital gains is not taxed at all until it is realized. If you sell the $2 million the $1 million in cap gains is taxed for the first time and the $1 million you paid for the stock is not taxed.

Now you please explain how any of that $2 million got taxed twice!!!!!!!
I won't hold my breath for your reply.

Huh?
What?
You mean...If I have a million dollars....I got that money and it was never taxed?
Huh?
Uh....hello.....it was 1.5 million taxed and the net was a million.....

It was taxed....

Jeez....you folks debate and yet you dont have a clue.
 
It was "....don't pay income taxes"

FICA is a tax on income. In any normal use of the english language, a tax on income is an income tax.

But again, if the right used such plain and simple english they'd lose claim on the "50% pay no taxes!" meme. So they create convoluted, twisting phrases that help them keep their constituents ignorant.
How often do you file to see if you owe more or get a refund on FICA withheld?

The most recent temporary sop aside, when have any of them proposed a permanent FICA tax cut?
Never, by either Party!!!

On this messageboard I have been proposing permanent FICA tax cuts during the run up to extending the Bush tax cuts. I have said that even when the GOP are right about tax cuts they are wrong because they always want to cut the wrong taxes. The job creating tax to cut is the FICA tax until there is no FICA tax, then and only then should another tax cut be considered.

Here's what I suggested should be done rather than extend the bush tax cuts:

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.
 
Except taxes are on income, not wealth. Stored wealth has already been taxed once (or twice). The top 1% of income earners pay way more than their corresponding share of total income.
This is the level of stupidity the GOP spin machine depends on!!!

Unrealized capital gains is not taxed at all, not once and not twice.

For example, if you have $1 million in stock and it doubles to $2 million, the 1$ in capital gains is not taxed at all until it is realized. If you sell the $2 million the $1 million in cap gains is taxed for the first time and the $1 million you paid for the stock is not taxed.

Now you please explain how any of that $2 million got taxed twice!!!!!!!
I won't hold my breath for your reply.

Huh?
What?
You mean...If I have a million dollars....I got that money and it was never taxed?
Huh?
Uh....hello.....it was 1.5 million taxed and the net was a million.....

It was taxed....

Jeez....you folks debate and yet you dont have a clue.
Tooooooo ignorant to know what TWICE means. Thank you for proving the complete stupidity required to be a CON$ervative.

Clearly I said the million you paid for the stock is not re-taxed when you sell the stock, only the $1 million in cap gains that the stock accrued is taxed when the $2 million dollars in stock is sold. So the whole $2 million was taxed only once, not twice, and you have only shown the $1 million used to purchase the stock was taxed only once.
 
Never! That's because it's a well-designed tax that hasn't been bastardized by a 10,000 page tax code. It's 7.65% from both parties, up to 106k, with virtually no exceptions.
No, it's 15+% entirely on the worker, with the employer getting a 7.65% exemption from his tax liability.

Before I starting filing Sub-S, I filed as self-employed for several years...You won't win this one.
As rare as it might be, Dupe is correct on this. In fact, when the CBO calculates the % of income, that is used by the Right to make the rich look poorer and the poor look richer, they count the full 15+% as income.

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Notes: Income categories are defined by ranking all people by their comprehensive household income adjusted for household
size--that is, divided by the square root of the household's size. (A household consists of the people who share a housing
unit, regardless of their relationships.) Quintiles, or fifths, of the income distribution contain equal numbers of people.

Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance). Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are included in the totals.
 
It's not so shocking. The top 5% pay 70% of all income taxes.

The shocking part is that the sheep want them to pay more.

The top 5% have about 70% of the income as well, not to mention more than 70% of the wealth.

That is not true. The top 5% earned 21.7% of the income in 2009.

Historical Income Tables - Income Inequality - U.S Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/H02AR_2009.xls
CON$ love to use the most inaccurate stats they can find, like the CENSUS BUREAU for income stats rather than say the CBO.

From the "About income" tab on your link:

Moreover, users should be aware that for many different reasons there is a tendency in household surveys for respondents to underreport their income.
 
Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

Except taxes are on income, not wealth. Stored wealth has already been taxed once (or twice). The top 1% of income earners pay way more than their corresponding share of total income.
Since by your sig you are a DittoTard, you will probably love this quote from your MessiahRushie. :lol:

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

We should replace the income tax, corporate taxes and payroll taxes with a FLAT tax on wealth, with no exceptions or deductions.
 
Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

Except taxes are on income, not wealth. Stored wealth has already been taxed once (or twice). The top 1% of income earners pay way more than their corresponding share of total income.
Since by your sig you are a DittoTard, you will probably love this quote from your MessiahRushie. :lol:

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."

We should replace the income tax, corporate taxes and payroll taxes with a FLAT tax on wealth, with no exceptions or deductions.

A wealth tax is unworkable, as wealth can be in non-liquid assets, while the tax must be paid in a liquid one, i.e. cash. So you get situations where your wealth tax payment could exceed your liquid assets and income, forcing you to sell said assets to pay off your wealth tax, and for most people "assets" means "house".
 
Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

I think it's shocking that they're paying so little, given how well they're doing compared to the rest of us.

But hey, I realize that that's just me.

I have very little sympathy for those poor put upon billionaires.

What prick I am, huh?
 
Except taxes are on income, not wealth. Stored wealth has already been taxed once (or twice). The top 1% of income earners pay way more than their corresponding share of total income.
Since by your sig you are a DittoTard, you will probably love this quote from your MessiahRushie. :lol:

The Truth About Taxes
August 6, 2007
RUSH: But there's no tax on wealth. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income is designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there.

I'm talking about genuine wealth, not the way Democrats define "rich."
We should replace the income tax, corporate taxes and payroll taxes with a FLAT tax on wealth, with no exceptions or deductions.

A wealth tax is unworkable, as wealth can be in non-liquid assets, while the tax must be paid in a liquid one, i.e. cash. So you get situations where your wealth tax payment could exceed your liquid assets and income, forcing you to sell said assets to pay off your wealth tax, and for most people "assets" means "house".
There may be some cases where people with multiple houses might have to sell one, but people who own only one home would only be paying a tax on the increase in value each year over what the house was worth the previous year, which would probably be much less than they would have paid in income tax, FICA tax, etc.
 
Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

I think it's shocking that they're paying so little, given how well they're doing compared to the rest of us.

But hey, I realize that that's just me.

I have very little sympathy for those poor put upon billionaires.

What prick I am, huh?

putting the few aside that are assholes...

Those poor put upon billionaires are the crux of philanthropies.....
You may not appreciate their wealth......
But they are not people that simply snub responsibility to their fellow man as you seem to want to paint them out to be.
 
A wealth tax is unworkable, as wealth can be in non-liquid assets, while the tax must be paid in a liquid one, i.e. cash. So you get situations where your wealth tax payment could exceed your liquid assets and income, forcing you to sell said assets to pay off your wealth tax, and for most people "assets" means "house".

That happens with property taxes all-too-often.
 
Conservatives on this site (and others) love to quote the statistic that says 40% of the income tax revenues come from the richest 1% of Americans. This statistic is true.

What these same posters ignore is that the top 1% of Americans control 40% of America's wealth. Seems to me that they pay exactly the percentage they should.

So it sounds like you're in favor of a flat tax? A flat simple flat tax on all income seems fair to me. This would also save oodles of money that's required to enforce a super-complicated tax code.
 
They will stop when they get to the finish line. The finish line is when the top 5% owns 100% of everything and there will be nothing left to argue over. Right now they own 84% of everything so it's only a matter of time. But what I can't wait to see is all those folks in the next 15% will be crying when they find out that their share is also gone to that 5% at the top.
The bottom 50% already understand that owing .03% of america does allows them to do, survive.

It just really makes me step back and look at what is happening, as I used to wonder what will be enough for these greedy people, but now understand that it is everything. As they keep making more and owning more and now hanging onto more as a family with the assult on Inheritance tax they are in the process of setting up a hiarchy in the usa that has never been thought of before.

You're painting with an extremely broad brush stroke. So all rich people are greedy, evil bastards? Get real. The thing that separates rich people from non-rich people, more than anything else, is success, not greed. I seriously question that all rich people are more greedy and evil than everyone else.
 
A wealth tax is unworkable, as wealth can be in non-liquid assets, while the tax must be paid in a liquid one, i.e. cash. So you get situations where your wealth tax payment could exceed your liquid assets and income, forcing you to sell said assets to pay off your wealth tax, and for most people "assets" means "house".

That happens with property taxes all-too-often.

Agreed, especially as they keep going up and up and up. A wealth tax at a federal level would be even worse, as it would probably occur AFTER your local property taxes are calcuated.

Another nightmare would be assesing the value of ones assets yearly. Sales taxes and income taxes are a cake walk in comparison. An income is a value of X, a sale has a value of Y. Land and material values are much harder to figure out.
 
structurally, it is run a bit like an insurance company. Revenues enter the system and some of those are used to pay current claims. any revenues remaining after paying current claims are invested.

In a traditional insurance company, current payees have a contractual right to those invested funds in future periods. Social Security is a bit different because:

1. By law, it must invest those funds in special treasury obligations. What makes those obligations "special" is that Congress is under no obligation to pay them.

Now isn't that special?

2. By law, no current payee has any contractual right to future revenues.

(as for investment plans, no - it's nothing at all like a personal investment plan)

The problem is that the language we use to talk about SS is quite disassociated from what SS actually is.

Agreed.

In my opinion it should be welfare for seniors funded by current taxes on employees plus any previous surplus. If it were targeted that way, lower incomes could be exempt and higher incomes taxed. However, the needs would be much lower so the tax rates would also drastically go down for nearly everyone. It perhaps could go up slightly for those on the tip top of the income scale.

Now the real question: Why won't that ever happen?

This is a fine example of an endangered species on message boards: after a long discussion, I agree with your assessment, almost entirely.

Unfortunately, the vested interests and special interest groups will never let it happen.

:up: :cheers2:
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top