In case anyone thought racism in America was dead . . .

[Alc]

It's quite interesting how many things, from a Republican standpoint, 'say it all'. We've had poetry, cartoons, quotes from websites, and that's just what I've noticed (I'm sure I missed a few among all the insults flying back and forth).

 

[georgedwilkinson]

It's quite interesting how many things, from a Republican standpoint, 'say it all'. We've had poetry, cartoons, quotes from websites, and that's just what I've noticed (I'm sure I missed a few among all the insults flying back and forth).

Obama makes it easy.

 

[dkinley]

To respond to the concerns about Republicans against organized help. I think I brought it up in a previous post about the Earned Income Credit. This, as the connotation credit suggests, is a redistributed form of help to those that are working.

I am not an out and out Republican or conservative. In fact, you probably could almost label me as a classic liberal by its original definition (individual freedom and limited government) - not the current one.

I've never spoken out about the EIC because it has it's benefits. The keywords are earned income. The basis of obtaining a distribution is in proportion to the income that was earned. Basically, if you did not earn enough income to put you at a certain level, the government steps in to help you get the rest of the way there. This was instituted by Reagan.

In fact, if I were running things, this would actually be expanded in a slightly different direction and be regressive to various degrees.

This is opposite of what Obama is proposing, an outright check for doing nothing. There is only negative reinforcement and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that doesn't work. This "economic justice" that Obama called for in 2001 could only amount to the US creeping further and further away from our founding principles. I am reminded of the mainstream parable about how to catch a pig as an analogy to socialism.

-dK

 

[Alisa]

To respond to the concerns about Republicans against organized help. I think I brought it up in a previous post about the Earned Income Credit. This, as the connotation credit suggests, is a redistributed form of help to those that are working.

I am not an out and out Republican or conservative. In fact, you probably could almost label me as a classic liberal by its original definition (individual freedom and limited government) - not the current one.

I've never spoken out about the EIC because it has it's benefits. The keywords are earned income. The basis of obtaining a distribution is in proportion to the income that was earned. Basically, if you did not earn enough income to put you at a certain level, the government steps in to help you get the rest of the way there. This was instituted by Reagan.

In fact, if I were running things, this would actually be expanded in a slightly different direction and be regressive to various degrees.

This is opposite of what Obama is proposing, an outright check for doing nothing. There is only negative reinforcement and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that doesn't work. This "economic justice" that Obama called for in 2001 could only amount to the US creeping further and further away from our founding principles. I am reminded of the mainstream parable about how to catch a pig as an analogy to socialism.

-dK

Really? I didn't see anywhere in his plan where it said you get a check for doing nothing. What are you talking about?

 

[georgedwilkinson]

It's basic tax stuff. People who don't earn much money actually get more money "back" than they ever paid in. It's called a "tax credit".

It is what Obama wants to do. He wants to take our money (can't say $250K anymore since he changes that by the minute now), and give it to people who don't make much ("spread the wealth").

 

[Alisa]

It's basic tax stuff. People who don't earn much money actually get more money "back" than they ever paid in. It's called a "tax credit".

It is what Obama wants to do. He wants to take our money (can't say $250K anymore since he changes that by the minute now), and give it to people who don't make much ("spread the wealth").

People who don't earn much money pay proportionally more of their income in payroll taxes than high earners. Tax credits are a workaround that attempts to lift some of the burden of the regressive nature of payroll taxes. But overall, wage earners still pay proportionally more taxes than the wealthy.

And yes it is still 250. He has ALWAYS said and CONTINUES to say that anyone making less than 250 will NOT see a tax increase. He has ALWAYS said and CONTINUES to say that families making under 200 will get a tax cut. Nothing has changed, regardless of what O'Reilly makes up on his show.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

People who don't earn much money pay proportionally more of their income in payroll taxes than high earners. Tax credits are a workaround that attempts to lift some of the burden of the regressive nature of payroll taxes. But overall, wage earners still pay proportionally more taxes than the wealthy.

Nonsense. This is the new Obama lie that we can now include Social Security/FICA and unemployment insurance in on what is considered income tax for the purposes of these mostly useless arguments. It is not, it is your payment into a system that the taxpayer will (may?) one day get back. I hate it, personally, but it is not income tax and there is no equivalency. The maximums for these amounts are fixed, as are the benefits that you will/may receive back in the future. It is forced insurance. Now if Obama will rescind FICA and FUTA for all taxpayers, he'll get a lot more supporters. Heck, I'd even consider it.

Fact is, people who earn higher than average income pay higher income taxes. Since this is the tax that Obama said we were talking about (for the $250K or $200K or $150K or whatever his new number is), we'll go ahead and stick with his rule on what a tax is. If you don't believe that higher earners pay a higher percentage of taxes, volunteer to work in a tax office this tax season and get the facts. Or just look at the tax tables: it's all there. The loopholes people talk about are nonsense. Just try to pay some of the outrageous taxes that come with a higher income.

 

[Brianwarnock]

When I entered the higher tax band I was chuffed because it meant that I was earning more money, and of course any % increases meant a bigger actual increase, plus our salary scales took a leap at approx the point the average guy would pay higher tax.

All tax systems have winners and losers, its a nice idea to have only indirect taxation, except for those starting out, and the lack of certainty of income for the government.
Oh and I forgot low income earners would pay far more proportionately as we all pay similar amounts for some things.

Brian

 

[Rabbie]

When I entered the higher tax band I was chuffed because it meant that I was earning more money, and of course any % increases meant a bigger actual increase, plus our salary scales took a leap at approx the point the average guy would pay higher tax.

All tax systems have winners and losers, its a nice idea to have only indirect taxation, except for those starting out, and the lack of certainty of income for the government.
Oh and I forgot low income earners would pay far more proportionately as we all pay similar amounts for some things.

Brian

No government that is elected wants to have hgh taxes because they want win next time round. They also have to provide services because that is also what voters want. This of course creates a probem that can only be solved temporarily by borrowing to bridge the gap. Then by creating a certain amount of inflation the amount of debt is reduced in real terms and so the whole cycle continues.

Indirect taxation while easy to collect and difficult to evade has the disadvantage of falling harder on the relatively poor ( a large group) and not so hard on the rich ( a smaller group) so generates more ill-will among the voters

 

[Alisa]

Nonsense. This is the new Obama lie that we can now include Social Security/FICA and unemployment insurance in on what is considered income tax for the purposes of these mostly useless arguments. It is not, it is your payment into a system that the taxpayer will (may?) one day get back. I hate it, personally, but it is not income tax and there is no equivalency. The maximums for these amounts are fixed, as are the benefits that you will/may receive back in the future. It is forced insurance. Now if Obama will rescind FICA and FUTA for all taxpayers, he'll get a lot more supporters. Heck, I'd even consider it.

Fact is, people who earn higher than average income pay higher income taxes. Since this is the tax that Obama said we were talking about (for the $250K or $200K or $150K or whatever his new number is), we'll go ahead and stick with his rule on what a tax is. If you don't believe that higher earners pay a higher percentage of taxes, volunteer to work in a tax office this tax season and get the facts. Or just look at the tax tables: it's all there. The loopholes people talk about are nonsense. Just try to pay some of the outrageous taxes that come with a higher income.

So a tax that is collected out of every dollar you earn is NOT an income tax? If payroll taxes were progressive, they would collect a lower percentage out of low earner's paychecks, or you would only pay payroll tax once your paycheck was over a certain amount. Instead it is completely backwards - payroll taxes are collected even if you don't make enough to eat, but if your salary is over about 100k, the rest of your paycheck is free in clear. That doesn't make any sense, but rather than fix it, we have various tax credits to ease the imbalance a little bit.

So the tax credits are given in the context of the effective tax rate that people pay, not the income tax rate that people pay. If you want to look at effective tax rates, you can't just look at income tax, you have to look at all taxes people pay, including payroll, income, sales, and property taxes. You can't say, I'm just going to look at this little piece and ignore the big picture. And this is not an "Obama" idea. I mean, the guy is smart, but he didn't invent effective tax rates - the IRS publishes effective tax rates in the front of the tax booklet each year.

Maybe you missed it when I quote McCain earlier on this thread, or maybe it was another one. It is all starting to blend together. McCain himself explained to a questioner that the rich didn't really pay as high of a tax rate that she was complaining about because of loopholes. Are you calling your candidate a liar?

And by the way, are you aware that McCain himself collects around 2k per month in social security a month, even though he is a multi millionaire, and even though he claims that the system is broken? Just thought I would mention it.

 

[Rich]

And by the way, are you aware that McCain himself collects around 2k per month in social security a month, even though he is a multi millionaire, and even though he claims that the system is broken? Just thought I would mention it.

"Typical GOP politician... criminal to the core!" and of course his wife earnt over $100,000 in 2006 alone, and he's lost count of the number of houses he owns

 

[georgedwilkinson]

"Typical GOP politician... criminal to the core!" and of course his wife earnt over $100,000 in 2006 alone, and he's lost count of the number of houses he owns

Your knowledge of the US is sad. It is a requirement to take Social Security if you paid into it, regardless of how much you or your wife made after a certain age (I think it's 67 now). As I said earlier, Social Security payments belong to the person who paid into the system. It is not a tax, it is a retirement plan.

And $100K is not that much. Surely they have other income. They couldn't even pay for maintenance on their houses with so little.

 

[pbaldy]

So a tax that is collected out of every dollar you earn is NOT an income tax?

Correct. According to the Social Security website itself, it's insurance. The various programs are: "Retirement Insurance Program", "Survivors Insurance Program", "Social Security Disability Insurance Program" and of course Medicare ("Hospital Insurance" and "Medical Insurance").

 

[Rich]

Your knowledge of the US is sad. It is a requirement to take Social Security if you paid into it, regardless of how much you or your wife made after a certain age (I think it's 67 now). As I said earlier, Social Security payments belong to the person who paid into the system. It is not a tax, it is a retirement plan.

And $100K is not that much. Surely they have other income. They couldn't even pay for maintenance on their houses with so little.

He's not retired and I missed a few noughts off the end of her income for 2006

 

[Alisa]

Correct. According to the Social Security website itself, it's insurance. The various programs are: "Retirement Insurance Program", "Survivors Insurance Program", "Social Security Disability Insurance Program" and of course Medicare ("Hospital Insurance" and "Medical Insurance").

Obviously I know that it is not classified as income tax The point is you can't talk about tax burden without looking at all of the taxes that people have to pay. You can't just ignore this huge piece of the tax pie and say, these people don't pay any taxes when it is just not true.

 

[pbaldy]

Based on the question I responded to, I would say "Obviously" and the sarcastic smiley are out of line (though not unexpected). If those are truly insurance premiums, then it makes sense that everyone should pay them, not just the rich, and that there should be a cap. I've unfortunately never hit it, but shouldn't there be a limit on how much somebody pays for a crappy insurance policy?

 

[Alisa]

Based on the question I responded to, I would say "Obviously" and the sarcastic smiley are out of line (though not unexpected). If those are truly insurance premiums, then it makes sense that everyone should pay them, not just the rich, and that there should be a cap. I've unfortunately never hit it, but shouldn't there be a limit on how much somebody pays for a crappy insurance policy?

They aren't insurance premiums.

 

[pbaldy]

So they're insurance programs, but the payments into them aren't insurance premiums? Doesn't really change my points, but I'll yield to your semantics.

 

[Alisa]

So they're insurance programs, but the payments into them aren't insurance premiums? Doesn't really change my points, but I'll yield to your semantics.

They aren't insurance programs. An insurance program is where you pay in a small percentage of what you might claim, based on the risk that you would actually file a claim.
Everybody gets social security and medicare. Therefore, they are not insurance programs.

 

[KenHigg]

...Everybody gets social security and medicare.

Even if you're sorry and never worked a day in your life...