[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[rextorres]

No, I've said all all along that Social Security Tax is an income tax in disguise. People conveniently forget to include this tax when factoring in who pays what in this country.

If the social security tax were set aside I would most likely agree with you, but since it's being spent instead of being put in a "lock box" then it's an income tax - it's money taken out of your pay check based on income - it's being used to mask an even larger deficit - they can call it by any name they want but it's an income tax. Also we all pay federal taxes on gas, phone, etc and that wasn't cut either.

Seasonal workers pay Social Security Tax Too - and I am still not getting how 42% is not the largest percentage by far.

Most (I don't know the exact figure - this is an assumption on my part) people don't have children and it's only a $400 credit increase. Also (I don't want to look up the exact # but if you make UNDER a certain amount your not entitled to the credit. That was one of the big political squabbles).

Speaking back to the article in question: if Bush really had wanted to help the workers of America he would have focused on the payroll tax and not on (I know this is a tired argument) the top 1%.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Seasonal workers pay Social Security Tax Too - and I am still not getting how 42% is not the largest percentage by far.

They are the largest group. I didn't say they weren't. If that is what you had said originally I wouldn't have disagreed with you about it. You said "Well MOST people who work make less than 25k a year.", that's not the same thing you are saying now.

Originally posted by rextorres:
Speaking back to the article in question: if Bush really had wanted to help the workers of America he would have focused on the payroll tax and not on (I know this is a tired argument) the top 1%.

It's not only tired, it's flat wrong. The tax cuts don't only benefit the top 1% as you appear to be inferring. edited for clarity

But I would love it if he could do something about the medicare and SSI taxes. But that's the "third rail" of American politics. They tried to privitize some of that stuff. It wouldn't lower the outgo, but at least you'd know what you put in would be coming back to you someday. But even that idea got bLasted.

[ September 18, 2003, 02:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[teal]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

It's not only tired, it's flat wrong. The tax cuts don't benefit the top 1%.

huh?! Wasn't the theme of this thread, "let's all be super precise in our language and make sure that we never ever say anything that isn't 100% technically true"???

If so, then please do provide some facts here Geo showing that the top 1% got NOTHING from the tax break. Because that is what you just said. Of course AK was saying a while earlier that "everyone" who had kids got $400 bucks, but of course no one in the top 1% could possibly have any kids. And I seem to remember something about a dividend tax cut. I'm sure that no one in the top 1% of income has any stocks to speak of and didn't benefit from this dividend tax cut.

I could of course be shooting off my mouth here. But I think not. In any case the statement "the tax cut's don't benefit the top 1%" seems to be blatantly false on its face. The top 1% got *something*.

And now for a complete about face... Actually I happen to agree with the statement "the tax cut don't benefit the top 1%". But only in the sense that the tax cuts were a terrible idea that hurt the country as a whole and thus no american benfited from them in the long run. I say this because running a defecit as massive as the tax cut entails I believe is not good for us at all and will come back to bite us in the ***, hard. I prefer my governments to be fiscally responsible and to actually cut spending when they cut taxes not increase it like the current fiscally irresponsible administration has done.

And about the $400 that AK keeps talking about. Yes, many people "benefit" from this tax cut by getting X>0 number of dollars immediately. But that is quite clearly loaned money. No spending cut accompanied this tax cut and the defecit is going to be increased because of it. That is borrowed money. SOMEONE is going to have to pay it back some day, either directly or in the form of a collapsing currency should the government default on its bonds. I bet if I went to AK's house and said, "here's $400 bucks now, don't worry about paying me back now, I'll come along at some future time (probably when you can least afford it), and demand the money back then" that he might have a slightly different view on whether I was "benefitting" him or not.

All this is arguable of course. A case can be made for running a defecit under certain conditions and even in the hypothetical visit AK may need that $400 bucks so much he is willing to take the risk. But I for one am going to be casting my vote in the next election for someonewho at least understands that cutting revenues should be accomanied by some plan for cutting spending. If a politician does not do so then they are a coward for trying to saddle some future leader with the consequences of their bad fiscal management.

[ September 17, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: teal ]

[Narrew]

ok, ok, I wanted to get in here on the tax debate

First, the money going to free Iraq, I am as sure as I can be that the future Iraqi government will pay us back. Now before anyone points it out, I realize that we forgave the French the 2 times we bailed their butts out, but I think we would be very stoopid not to get repaid back, also I think we have a moral obligation to help the Iraqi's after we let them down after Desert Storm I when we encouraged them to revolt and they all died when Saddam slammed them down. Also, if we can help them along to democracy, then that will can not hurt.

Income Tax--the top 50% of Income tax payers pay 96% of Income tax's, that is from IRS figures. I think a flat tax would be more reasonable (a very low one) then have a national sales tax, so if your rich and buy rich things, you pay! I would make congress put a super-majority requirement on that (both the flat tax and sales tax).

Payroll Tax (SS and Medicaid)--Is a social program that is just a huge bloated, mismanaged organization. Both programs were implemented with good intentions, but are ran hideously. If I knew 90% of their budget went to the people that need it then I think it would viable, but when I hear a SS official say that we had to spend ever dollar (which went to new furniture and bonuses) so we can get more next year, that is messed up, a company cant survive with that attitude.
Also, there is NO politician (right or left) that will EVER decrease Payroll Tax, that would make all liberals scream "they are taking these social programs from you". They do need to privatize them, or work to that direction, it is inefficient as it is now, more money will go to overhead and NOT to the people that need it.
SS was started to SUPPLEMENT retirement, but has become many peoples sole retirement income (that just shows you that many people will not take responsibility for their own future when they think the government will do it for them, sad really), then they added disability ect... that just made it a bigger hand out program.

The prescription bill coming along will be such a bad thing it wont be funny, not just because it will be ANOTHER social program, but it will force people out of their employers/retirement programs and into a national program, that will be bloated and cost more than what the private sector can do it for.

Finally, something that has got my attention recently is the United States Constitution. Specifically Section 8. This is where the Founding Fathers spelled out things, like what is the role for the Federal Government. To make it brief, the US Government shall Provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States (and NO, I don't think they meant social welfare programs). To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, the States and Indian Tribes. To establish rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies through the U.S. To regulate and coin money and fix Standard of Weights and Measurements. To establish Post offices and post roads. To raise and support Armies, but NO appropriation of money to the USE shall be for a longer term than 2 years. To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. There are other things related to foreign relations ect...but you should get the idea of what our Founding Fathers had in mind. That the federal government is for the protection of the nation as the whole, and if you read more in the constitution, they wanted all rights go to the States for self government, so they can decide how the best way their population wanted to live. The only real exception was that there was no law against going across state borders, so if you didn't like how one state did things, there was no law that kept you from moving elsewhere.

No where did the Founding Fathers say that the Federal Government was the be-all/end-all, cradle to grave, hold your hand for everyone. The Great Depression allowed the Federal Government to assume powers that were never intended for the Federal Government. True, many things helped the nation get back on its feet, but at a cost that we are still paying today. If States kept control, but was subsidized by the Feds, that would have been legal (as far as the Article 8 of the Constitution). I also think that most politicians had good intentions, but they unknowingly created a beast that will never be satisfied, the more money you put in it, the more it demands, it does not care about results, just more money. (and if you doubt that, just look at our education system, we could dump $100 trillion more each year and it would not improve children's education, because when you have kids that can not past a graduation test that they can take 5 times and only have to get 40% correct with the amount we spend now, well...).

I am not naive enough to think we can get back to what our Founding Fathers intended. But there ARE too many Federal Government programs that need to be either privatized (so money gets to the people that need it) or shut down. I do not think we need to subsidies the phone industry, we don't need to subsidies farmers especially milk producers (I mean, a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas), if we could get to a flat tax, then I would like to see no more deductions period. No more Corporate Welfare, it will be hard to just throw out a blanket statement that no more corporate subsides, but I am sure many of them are not needed other than a form of PORK.

There is no reason NOT to help people that need help, but as a tax payer, there is NO reason that any program shouldn't be ran efficiently. That is just common sense, sadly that is lacking in our Government.

Ok, golly that took me a while....

[Narrew]

ACK, I cant put a picture here, so go this link...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of _income_taxes.guest.html

[ September 17, 2003, 23:31: Message edited by: Narrew ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by teal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:

It's not only tired, it's flat wrong. The tax cuts don't benefit the top 1%.

huh?! Wasn't the theme of this thread, "let's all be super precise in our language and make sure that we never ever say anything that isn't 100% technically true"???
****snip****
I could of course be shooting off my mouth here. But I think not. In any case the statement "the tax cut's don't benefit the top 1%" seems to be blatantly false on its face. The top 1% got *something*.

---

Teal, No, I don't believe that is the theme of this thread, but I did mispeak. I left out the word "only". Rex's statement infered that the tax cut only benefitted the top 1%. That wasn't his use of words exactly, but that seems to be his meaning from the contrast against a "payroll tax cut". I was disagring with the notion that it only benefitted the top 1% of wage earners. This is patently false.

[ September 18, 2003, 01:56: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[teal]

Geo: Sorry about perhaps sounding a little harsh. I'm sure that if I had thought a little more I could have found a nicer way to point out your typo.

But I think my charicature of the forum topic stands as valid (as a charicature). You say that Rex's statement meant that *only* the top 1% of wage earner's benefited from the tax cut. By no stretch of the imagination could Rex have meant that literaly. Thus you are picking on him for saying something which is technically not true, but fail to really address the gist of his meaning (that the top 1% benefit *disproportianetly* (sp?) more than other tax payers). I gave into my penchant for sarcastic arguing by using this same tactic against you. As it always does, it backfired and made me look like a jerk and I should know better.

To my mind, the ideal form of a debate is to always grant your oppenent their best possible argument (even if what they say is not quite that best possible argument). So when Rex spouts some tired argument about the top 1% of the tax payers being the one to benefit (implying *only* them in your mind), this should be read in its most powerful light (that the top 1% benefit more than everyone else does). Then one should try and argue with this new and improved best possible argument of ones debating oppenent. Admittedly, I have a lot of trouble doing this myself, but it is a good standard to try and live up to I think. If one is interested in actually feretting out some insight into questions and not merely scoring debating points.

Teal

[Mathias_Ice]

Originally posted by Narrew:
ok, ok, I wanted to get in here on the tax debate

WOOT!!!! You go brother!! (I wanted to quote the whole thing but that would have been a little too much.)

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by teal:
You say that Rex's statement meant that *only* the top 1% of wage earner's benefited from the tax cut. By no stretch of the imagination could Rex have meant that literaly. Thus you are picking on him for saying something which is technically not true, but fail to really address the gist of his meaning (that the top 1% benefit *disproportianetly* (sp?) more than other tax payers).

I disagree totally that Rex could not be reasonably thought to have meant that. Even now after rereading it I still believe that is exactly what he meant. But I may be wrong and said as much in my post.

If I am incorrect and he meant that the top 1% benefit *disproportionally* as you suggest, then he is still wrong. Because the top 1% do not benefit from the tax cuts disproportionally.

[teal]

Originally posted by Narrew:

Income Tax--the top 50% of Income tax payers pay 96% of Income tax's, that is from IRS figures. I think a flat tax would be more reasonable (a very low one) then have a national sales tax, so if your rich and buy rich things, you pay! I would make congress put a super-majority requirement on that (both the flat tax and sales tax).

First off, its very well known that sales tax is actually a *regressive* tax. This means that practically speaking, instituting a sales tax or instituting an income tax where the poorest 20% pay an income tax rate of 30% with the next richest paying an income tax rate of 25%, etc. are functionally identical.

So my question for you is. Do you think it is fair to have a tax system where the richest people pay proportiantely *less* of their income than poorer people? Your initial rhetoric is talking about a flat tax, so I would think that you think it is fair to have people pay an even percentage of their income to taxes. I agree with this as far as it goes, except in that I have seen some fairly compelling arguments that a progressive tax system is actually a good thing for the economy as a whole and thus I might favor that if these arguments hold water. But that is besides the point. The point is that a national sales tax is highly *regressive* in nature. In effect, what you are arguing here, is that poorer people should pay more of their income to taxes than rich people.

It get's worse though. Federal taxes are of course not the only taxes that Americans pay. They also pay local and state taxes as well. Sadly many states already have a regressive tax system because they rely heavily on sales, excise, and property taxes, all of which are regressive.

http://www.ctj.org/itep/whopays.htm

What this means is that even if we instituted just a federal flat income tax that the poorest peole would be, on average, paying more of their income in total taxes than richer people throughout the 50 states because of the effect of these regressive state and local taxes. We need a progressive federal income tax system just in order to make the overall tax system flat!

Narrew may be particuarly interested to know that Washington state is one of the worst states in the nation in terms of being particuarly regressive:
Total local and state tax rate as a percentage of income in Washington state:

poorest 20%: 17.5% of income
20% to 40%: 13% of income
40% to 60%: 11.5% of income
60% to 80%: 9.5% of income
80% to 95%: 8% of income
95% to 99%: 5.5% of income
richest 1%: 3% of income

I can't think of any possible reason why this is a "fair" state of affairs.

Next time you listen to a politician spouting about a "flat" tax ask them about how they feel about sales and excise and property taxes as well. If you truly believe in equal tax rates then you can't in good conscience advocate these kinds of taxes.

[ September 18, 2003, 03:46: Message edited by: teal ]