OT: Rating the President

[Fian]

"Um . . . well actually when you factor in the Social Security tax which is just thrown into the general fund (and not in a "lock box" remember Gore "lost") the top 5% make 35% of the income but only pay 21% of the REVENUE. (Pretty good if you ask me and something conservatives seem to conveniently always forget)."

Once again only a small portion of SS is spent on things other than Social Security. Social Security is supposed to be a self-sufficient benefit to all citizens, so it is perfectly reasonable for the poor to pay this benefit as well as the rich. As we have discussed before, reducing the SS tax would be a bad thing, because all projections seem to indicate that we will run out of money when all the Baby Boomers retire, forcing us to raise taxes anyway.

"the top 5% make 35% of the income but only pay 21% of the REVENUE"
Not quite sure how the top 5% pays most of the income tax, their portion of Social Security, and they end up paying less than the rest? Would you explain your numbers in more detail? I believe you said somewhere else that there is a cap on SS deductions? I suppose we could change that, and instead of the rich getting a cap on how large their Social Security check, they could actually get the amount that they contributed. The thing is, I don't believe anyone would want that.

And here is another fundamental issue. Should the rich be obligated to pay for the poor? Is it the obligation of a rich person to pay for a woman on welfare with 3 kids? And if they want to reduce how much they give, do they then become evil and greedy in your view? Should the rich not instead deserve our praise for all the help that they provide for the needy? I think that jealousy is a big factor here. The poor man doesn't like it that he doesn't have a lot of money and the rich man does. He never considers the sacrifices and hard work that the rich man had to make to get that wealth. He doesn't respect the ingenuity of the rich man to succeed in a competitive market. The poor man believes that he should have as much as the rich without having to work for it. That in my opinion is envy and jealousy, and not something that I want to reward.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Fian:
Once again only a small portion of SS is spent on things other than Social Security.

I know it's crazy and people refuse to believe it but in the 80s congress ordered the Treasury Department to use the money in the Social Security Trust Fund as though it were general revenue, promising to pay it back. So Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool.

If you look at the US budget at:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy...get/tables.pdf
that's how its presented.

Originally posted by Fian:
Not quite sure how the top 5% pays most of the income tax, their portion of Social Security, and they end up paying less than the rest? Would you explain your numbers in more detail?

(if the below is too dry for you than you can just take my word that the top 5% pay less taxes than the rest but make more than a third of the income).

People don't get this but you only pay SS tax on the first 77k of income. So someone making $1million pays same gross dollar amount as someone who makes 77k for social security tax which is 8.9%.

According to the Government report on Rush's website ( http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/men...res.guest.html ) the top 5% pay 56% of the income tax and have 35% of the income.

But the way the government SPENDS is by revenue collected. (look at link above)

44% is social security
10% is corporate tax and fees
46% is income tax.

So the 56% is really (56% of 46% of the total money the government collects and spends).

There were ~8million tax returns by people in the top 5% out of ~128million total returns.

The other 120 million paid 44% of the income tax + most of the social security tax.

If you do the math (if don't want to take my word for it look it up) then the #s you question hold up.

Originally posted by Fian:
And here is another fundamental issue. Should the rich be obligated to pay for the poor? Is it the obligation of a rich person to pay for a woman on welfare with 3 kids? And if they want to reduce how much they give, do they then become evil and greedy in your view? Should the rich not instead deserve our praise for all the help that they provide for the needy?

Well first of all I wouldn't call someone who works 40 hours a week at minimum wage lazy. There is a myth that welfare is a huge part of the budget when it is less than 4%. No one is saying that the rich shouldn't be rich. But the disparity of wealth is getting so bad that it's dangerous.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If you get your information from extremely biased web sites, it can't be relied upon, period.

I am not sure what Data your questioning:

Distribution of Wealth: The data is from the census - I guess we can argue if the census was accurate but the census tends to miss poor people.

Here is another website that says the same thing
http://www.policyideas.org/Issues/So...old_Wealth.pdf

Senators: You can look up the ratio of senators that is pretty cut and dry I don't know what argument you have with this.

The Deficit: Data comes from the website below which is a government agency.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm#history

Income information: Data also comes from a government agency.

[ February 07, 2003, 00:56: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fyron]

The web sites you had posted before that Last post were all explicitly biased, and could in no way be trusted to give even remotely unbiased information.

[Instar]

Guys guys guys guys!
I get enough of debates in my philosophy classes! Agh! Save me!
Haha, just kidding, but seriously, this is a deep philosophical question of the time.

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The web sites you had posted before that Last post were all explicitly biased, and could in no way be trusted to give even remotely unbiased information.

So what is an unbiased source? The government and media commentators definetly aren't.

Originally posted by Fian:
If the rich really were running the country, why isn't their tax rate lower? Maybe a flat tax? It is precisely because we are a democracy, and their vote equals the same as a poor man's that we have such a disparity in the tax rates. The poor continue to want services that they can't pay for (prescription drug benefit), and the rich are then the ones that end up paying for it.

As for the rich owning everything, I don't know if that is true. Can you provide any evidence that it is? We have a large middle class in America that owns stock, and as a whole might own more than the richest 5%.

Well if the poor and middle class were running the country why isn't their tax rate lower? Don't know about the US but in Australia the tax-free threshold (the amount of income your earning before you have to pay tax) has moved about 10% in the Last 20 or so years, not really in line with the cost of a loaf of bread.

The rich also benefits from the services the poor gets. ie
1) The waiter serving them food is dying from some treatable illness.
2) The guy receiving welfare isn't robbing him.
3) The person who just left school has the education and skills necessary to flip burgers in his McDonald's franchise.

See, its a win-win situation. Putting more pressure on the poor is eventually going to find its way up the chain and eventually you'll get a peasant revolt and there's nothing more annoying than when your entertaining friends at your manor and angry peasants are burning your cars. Welfare/public services benefits society as whole, not just the individuals who receive it.

As for the rich owning everything. I've clarified that, they own/control almost everything. A large chunk of American's might own stocks but they still have no say in the company they own a part of. The major stockholders do. The advertisers in newspapers have more say in the "content" of the stories than the readers.

Askan

[Fyron]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The web sites you had posted before that Last post were all explicitly biased, and could in no way be trusted to give even remotely unbiased information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is an unbiased source? The government and media commentators definetly aren't.

Less so than some web site owned by some random person.

In the US, poor people pay no to almost no taxes. They _can't_ get a tax cut without being given tax money back.

[ February 07, 2003, 03:14: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
In the US, poor people pay no to almost no taxes. They _can't_ get a tax cut without being given tax money back.

That is not true! What is your definition of a poor person? What is your definition of a tax?

EVERYONE who works pays social security tax BEFORE deductions. So a family of four making 20k (poverty level) still pays $1900 in taxes that they can't get back - even with credits. This applies even to a welfare check!!

That's a tax if you ask me.

Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool since its lumped into the general fund.

[ February 07, 2003, 04:20: Message edited by: rextorres ]