Campy Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Campy, I thought you were about to retract your statement that they soldiers were told how to answer....please post up some links to where they were given the answers...we're still waiting... 479927[/snapback] Just a few thoughts to ponder while you're waiting... -I'm the first one to admit my errors. That wasn't one of them. -I saw it on the news, which makes linking pretty difficult, but it was what it was, a photo-op gone awry - busted by a live camera. -You don't have to wait for me. Try something new - think for yourself and take a look here.
Taro T Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Have you considered that the current marginal tax rate on these top 25% of earners is zero? Lifting the ceiling only makes their marginal tax rate the same as the marginal tax rate for the bottom 25% of earners. Did raising the ceiling on Medicare tax lead to the same dire consequences and the end of civilization as we know it? So, the rich have to pay the same rate as low income people on every dollar of earnings. Sounds fair to me. 479991[/snapback] OK, I'll bite. How is the marginal tax rate on the top 25% of earners 0%?
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 OK, I'll bite. How is the marginal tax rate on the top 25% of earners 0%? 480146[/snapback] Because they currently pay 0% Social security tax on every dollar earned above the ceiling of $90,000 in 2005. Therefore, their marginal rate on any additional earnings is 0%. Anyone who earns below $90,000, has a marginal tax rate of 6.2%.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 I don't nessecarily disagree with your opinion regarding GWB's approach to "fixing" social security. Your takeon SSDI is incorrect, I believe. SSDI and SSI have long been administered by the Social Security administration, however the funds for those programs have always come from general funds, not from SS taxes collected. Few people realize that. I have often heard people complain about disabled getting "my Social Security" dollars, when those recipients are not, they are getting SSI or SSDI. 478994[/snapback] From the SSA website: "Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) program are financed primarily by employment taxes."
KRC Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 I know this statement won't be popular, but why should popularity with the public matter- isn't the role of Government to do whats best long term, and not give into what the public sees as the flavor of the week? 479953[/snapback] If the public decries a measure, Congressional representatives will back down and not support it. If Congress does not support it, it fails. It is up to the Administration to sell it to the public as something good long term. It is a tough sell, since people only think short-term and mainly think of themselves.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 You've already been corrected in this thread not to mix Social Security with SSDI, yet you persist. 479834[/snapback] From the SSA website: "Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) program are financed primarily by employment taxes." I've persisted because I thought that I was correct. Guess what? I was. Also: "The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program paid about $71.4 billion in benefits to about 5.3 million disabled workers and 1.6 million spouses and dependent children in calendar year 2002. Like the Social Security retirement program, SSDI is funded by an explicit payroll tax. The first 0.85 percent of the 7.65 percent Social Security tax collected from the employer and a matching amount from the employee (1.70 percent total) goes into SSDI's trust fund and is kept separate from funds used to pay retirement and survivors insurance benefits." And what is the actuarial number of people who qualify for SS benefits and die with young children in the household? "Social Security Survivors Benefits Who can get survivors benefits? Children under age 18 can get Social Security survivors benefits and so can a child who is under 19 but still in high school ... or a child who is age 18 or older but who becomes disabled before age 22. A widow(er) who is caring for children under age 16 or disabled may receive benefits. A widow(er) age 60 or older, or a widow(er) age 50 or older who is disabled, may receive benefits. Today, Social Security pays monthly survivors benefits to about 7 million Americans, almost 2 million of whom are children."
IowaBill Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 From the SSA website: "Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program and Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) program are financed primarily by employment taxes." I've persisted because I thought that I was correct. Guess what? I was. Also: "The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program paid about $71.4 billion in benefits to about 5.3 million disabled workers and 1.6 million spouses and dependent children in calendar year 2002. Like the Social Security retirement program, SSDI is funded by an explicit payroll tax. The first 0.85 percent of the 7.65 percent Social Security tax collected from the employer and a matching amount from the employee (1.70 percent total) goes into SSDI's trust fund and is kept separate from funds used to pay retirement and survivors insurance benefits." "Social Security Survivors Benefits Who can get survivors benefits? Children under age 18 can get Social Security survivors benefits and so can a child who is under 19 but still in high school ... or a child who is age 18 or older but who becomes disabled before age 22. A widow(er) who is caring for children under age 16 or disabled may receive benefits. A widow(er) age 60 or older, or a widow(er) age 50 or older who is disabled, may receive benefits. Today, Social Security pays monthly survivors benefits to about 7 million Americans, almost 2 million of whom are children." 480165[/snapback] I was the person the made the original statement regarding SSDI and SSI. I was incorrect, regarding Social Security Disability benefits (SSD), and Live and Die Bills is correct oin that matter. There have been a number of references to SSI, which I think people believe is the "proper" bureaucratic acronym for Social Security. In fact, the acronym when used by the Social Security Administration (SSA) stands for Supplemental Security Income. SSI are payments to people that are disabled or indigent due to disability and have never payed into the SSA system. These benefits are payed from the general fund, not social securiy collections, but are administered by the Social Security Administration. Recipients of such benefits are often disabled from birth, or have been disabled since before the age of 21. Like most government bureaucracies, the acronyms and jargon are confusing and hard for a "lay" person to negotiate, and the employees of the "system" typically don't make it any easier.
KD in CA Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Because they currently pay 0% Social security tax on every dollar earned above the ceiling of $90,000 in 2005. Therefore, their marginal rate on any additional earnings is 0%. Anyone who earns below $90,000, has a marginal tax rate of 6.2%. 480158[/snapback] Which is completely appropriate since there is a limit on benefits received by all retrirees. Why don't you try comparing how much each group puts into v. what they take out of the program and then whine about the 'top 25%'? The "marginal" rate above the $90k figure is meaningless since those people have already contriburted more money into the program than anyone else earning less than that figure. As you've already conceeded, those lower income people are taking more out than they put in in the first place. But you go ahead and keep on harping on marginal rates like it actually has anything to do with this issue. And gee, it's not like the top 25% are already carrying virtually the entire federal tax burden anyway.
GG Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Which is completely appropriate since there is a limit on benefits received by all retrirees. Why don't you try comparing how much each group puts into v. what they take out of the program and then whine about the 'top 25%'? The "marginal" rate above the $90k figure is meaningless since those people have already contriburted more money into the program than anyone else earning less than that figure. As you've already conceeded, those lower income people are taking more out than they put in in the first place. But you go ahead and keep on harping on marginal rates like it actually has anything to do with this issue. And gee, it's not like the top 25% are already carrying virtually the entire federal tax burden anyway. 480185[/snapback] Thanks for saving me the time to type. There's still no answer on the effect on GDP that a 50% increase to the marginal tax rate, not even mentioning the probable increase in tax evasion by the upper 25%. Why do people think that a highly progressive tax code is effective, when the upper income class that's most impacted by higher rates is very capable of shifting that income to lower tax jurisdictions or implement tax saving measures? Get over it, Marx was wrong.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Thanks for saving me the time to type. There's still no answer on the effect on GDP that a 50% increase to the marginal tax rate, not even mentioning the probable increase in tax evasion by the upper 25%. Why do people think that a highly progressive tax code is effective, when the upper income class that's most impacted by higher rates is very capable of shifting that income to lower tax jurisdictions or implement tax saving measures? Get over it, Marx was wrong. 480211[/snapback] You were the one who brought up marginal rates, and as I stated the SS marginal tax rates on upper income earners is ZERO. The marginal rates of lower earners is 6.2%. Obviously, you don't seem to understand what marginal tax rates mean. Secondly, the SS tax is not a progressive tax, it is regressive. A Progressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage of income from high-income earners. Since the rate on high-income earners is lower than for low-income earners, it is by definition a Regressive tax. Once again, you show your stupidity.
GG Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 You were the one who brought up marginal rates, and as I stated the SS marginal tax rates on upper income earners is ZERO. The marginal rates of lower earners is 6.2%. Obviously, you don't seem to understand what marginal tax rates mean. Secondly, the SS tax is not a progressive tax, it is regressive. A Progressive tax is a tax that takes a larger percentage of income from high-income earners. Since the rate on high-income earners is lower than for low-income earners, it is by definition a Regressive tax. Once again, you show your stupidity. 480237[/snapback] What's the politically correct term for moron? I brought up the marginal rate because under your idiotic proposal the marginal tax rate on the highest earners would go up. I asked you to explain the impact it will have on the economy, to which there's obviously no answer, other than, but the debt will go up. That's nice, and Steve Walsh was a good college QB. Under your idiotic proposal, the SS tax would become progressive. Under your proposal, the tax payers who already contribute a far disproportionate share of tax revenues would be asked to kick in more for an unproductive use to them. Your idiotic proposal advocates pure wealth transfer. Read up the history on the economic success of wealth transfer programs. Under your idiotic proposal, the cost of tax avoidance would be much lower, precisely to the benefit to the tax payers who will be able to afford tax avoidance vehicles. Your idiotic proposal will ensure that there are fewer workers (higher unemployment) paying into the retirement system. Or do I have to type these points again in bold red font?
KD in CA Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Why do people think that a highly progressive tax code is effective, when the upper income class that's most impacted by higher rates is very capable of shifting that income to lower tax jurisdictions or implement tax saving measures? Because, unless I'm one of them, RICH PEOPLE BAD!!! Everything will be better if we just continue to soak the tiny minority in this country who already pay practically the entire federal tax bill. And if we twist around facts and type "ZERO" over and over in caps and bold face, that'll be enough to convince the really, really stupid people that it's all the fault of people who make more money than they do.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 What's the politically correct term for moron? 480303[/snapback] "Partisan"
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 What's the politically correct term for moron? I brought up the marginal rate because under your idiotic proposal the marginal tax rate on the highest earners would go up. I asked you to explain the impact it will have on the economy, to which there's obviously no answer, other than, but the debt will go up. That's nice, and Steve Walsh was a good college QB. Under your idiotic proposal, the SS tax would become progressive. Under your proposal, the tax payers who already contribute a far disproportionate share of tax revenues would be asked to kick in more for an unproductive use to them. Your idiotic proposal advocates pure wealth transfer. Read up the history on the economic success of wealth transfer programs. Under your idiotic proposal, the cost of tax avoidance would be much lower, precisely to the benefit to the tax payers who will be able to afford tax avoidance vehicles. Your idiotic proposal will ensure that there are fewer workers (higher unemployment) paying into the retirement system. Or do I have to type these points again in bold red font? 480303[/snapback] Hey, I answered your questions, you didn't like the answers so it now becomes a personal attack. That's ok. Well moron, under my proposal the SS tax does not become progressive. It stays the same. Maybe you should look up progressive tax and see what it actually means. Although I gave you the definition it obviously hasn't gotten past the tin foil hat on your head. Secondly, Mr Shitt-for-Brains, let me know how someone can use tax avoidance for SS tax. It's withheld from your paycheck. Oh, maybe your point is that people who make over $90,000 will stop working in order to avoid the 6.2% SS tax. That might make sense in your puny mind, but since you don't seem to have the intellect needed to mop floors, that is probably not your problem. This whole thing started when I suggested an alternative to Bush's SS proposal which is dead even though the Republicans currently control both houses of Congress. I guess that they don't think much of his proposal either.
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Hey, I answered your questions, you didn't like the answers so it now becomes a personal attack. That's ok. 480451[/snapback] Once again, you show your stupidity. Glass houses, my friend, glass houses.
GG Posted October 19, 2005 Posted October 19, 2005 Hey, I answered your questions, you didn't like the answers so it now becomes a personal attack. That's ok. Really? Where's your answer to the potential impact on GDP if you raise the SS tax? Calling me stupid is not a valid answer to that particular question. Maybe it is in your alternative math universe, but not in mine. Well moron, under my proposal the SS tax does not become progressive. It stays the same. Maybe you should look up progressive tax and see what it actually means. Although I gave you the definition it obviously hasn't gotten past the tin foil hat on your head. My puny brain shudders at your intellect. Perhaps that's why I need you to help explain to me how your proposed idiotic system would not effectively raise tax rates for someone who is making over $96,000. You see, in my world, when you eliminate the cap on SS income, that is a tax increase. Maybe, I'm being stupid in not seeing the difference in raising tax rates or eliminating the cap. But hey, it's just my stupid math. Maybe your enlightened self can explain the net effect to poor stupid me. Secondly, Mr Shitt-for-Brains, let me know how someone can use tax avoidance for SS tax. It's withheld from your paycheck. Oh, maybe your point is that people who make over $90,000 will stop working in order to avoid the 6.2% SS tax. That might make sense in your puny mind, but since you don't seem to have the intellect needed to mop floors, that is probably not your problem. Even this janitor can think of many ways that you can avoid a tax on paycheck earnings. Ever hear of deferred compensation until after retirement? How about shifting more of the salary into an equity payout, which isn't subject to payroll taxes? Those are just the ones that came to mind right now. I can imagine many more will come about once the lucrative but counterproductive industry of tax avoidance gets their mitts on it. Care to guess who will be the prime beneficiaries of these tax avoidance schemes? I bet it won't be lowly street sweepers, like me. This whole thing started when I suggested an alternative to Bush's SS proposal which is dead even though the Republicans currently control both houses of Congress. I guess that they don't think much of his proposal either. 480451[/snapback] The proposl is dead because this country is full of partisan morons, such as yourself that are too "smart" to think the issues through and fear that incurring additional government debt is worse than paying a hell of a lot more down the road. Why do you think I said that sound fiscal policy doesn't necessarily equate to popular political policy? Oh, yeah, it's because I'm a stupid street sweeper, and my opinion doesn't count.
Mickey Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 Really? Where's your answer to the potential impact on GDP if you raise the SS tax? Calling me stupid is not a valid answer to that particular question. Maybe it is in your alternative math universe, but not in mine.My puny brain shudders at your intellect. Perhaps that's why I need you to help explain to me how your proposed idiotic system would not effectively raise tax rates for someone who is making over $96,000. You see, in my world, when you eliminate the cap on SS income, that is a tax increase. Maybe, I'm being stupid in not seeing the difference in raising tax rates or eliminating the cap. But hey, it's just my stupid math. Maybe your enlightened self can explain the net effect to poor stupid me. Even this janitor can think of many ways that you can avoid a tax on paycheck earnings. Ever hear of deferred compensation until after retirement? How about shifting more of the salary into an equity payout, which isn't subject to payroll taxes? Those are just the ones that came to mind right now. I can imagine many more will come about once the lucrative but counterproductive industry of tax avoidance gets their mitts on it. Care to guess who will be the prime beneficiaries of these tax avoidance schemes? I bet it won't be lowly street sweepers, like me. The proposl is dead because this country is full of partisan morons, such as yourself that are too "smart" to think the issues through and fear that incurring additional government debt is worse than paying a hell of a lot more down the road. Why do you think I said that sound fiscal policy doesn't necessarily equate to popular political policy? Oh, yeah, it's because I'm a stupid street sweeper, and my opinion doesn't count. 480583[/snapback] Yep, we are all stupid but you. How lucky we are to have you.
GG Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 Yep, we are all stupid but you. How lucky we are to have you. 480826[/snapback] If this is the best that you can do to help L&DBF, I truly feel sorry for your clients.
Recommended Posts