Don't believe the Obama lies on taxes

You're deliberately missing the point.

SS/MC withholding is now being used to claim that the working poor pay tax, because politicians with facile rationalizations understand that stupid people and their enablers believe all federal withholding is income tax. It ISN'T, and simply citing the definition doesn't make it one.

If you want to claim that SS/MC withholding is a tax because it's mandatory, you're straining at a gnat: 1/2 the people in the country make no contribution to America. Parse that however you want, it doesn't become less true, but that is exactly what liberal politicians do when they claim low wage earners are "paying taxes."

No, they're not.

Since you're a legalist, only definition 1 even comes close to the meaning of SS/MC:

A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government

Unfortunately for your thesis, SS/MC withholdings are not made for the support of the government. They're made for the support of the "Trust Funds," theoretically holding the money. That the government has borrowed against these funds doesn't change their purpose, and the government must eventually pay them back, or -- more likely as you point out -- default.

But neither default nor payback would be required of those funds if, as you incorrectly believe, they were fungible with the general revenue. They AREN'T. They're borrowed because their purpose is not to support the government, but rather to support the individuals paying them.

Thanks for blowing up your own silly, legalistic argument.

Regardless of whether the dollars are devalued or mandated, that money is not collected in support of the government, but rather, in support of the contributors.

I must buy car insurance to drive: it's the law, and there are criminal penalties for violating it. But that doesn't make it a tax.

The fact that the return is poor changes nothing. The fact that the government has borrowed and squandered most of it changes nothing. The fact that it's mandated changes nothing.

If you want to be on the side of politicians who make a shameful claim that "everybody who works pays federal taxes," that's fine with me. But it's a lie: 1/2 of the people who work in this country make no contribution to America. That is the fact.

Words mean things and we communicate only when we speak the same language using the same definitions...

You're deliberately missing the point.
Since you're a legalist

Ah, my bad, I thought the thing here was taxes and us working out policy --instead the topic is what I am and what I'm doing. Y'all can enjoy your fetish all you want, though I kind of think talking all day about me is well, boring. I'll pass...

"...money is not collected in support of the government, but rather, in support of the contributors..."

Right there is the nut of the controversy. Some say SocSec collects money to be used by contributors and most people here see it as a Ponzi scam for gov't spending. Two reasons make me favor the second theory over the first. One is that SocSec taxes have always been more than SocSec disbursements with surplus being immediately spent elsewhere. The other is that whenever governments reach the 'zero excess' point they slash/eliminate the program.

The money is collected to support the government, and payouts to contributors is held at the minimum needed to keep the scam going.

You and I see it that way, most conservatives see it that way; but that is not its intended purpose, its legislatively enacted function, nor the way the majority of the country sees it. Here is a depressing poll result: Among those self-identified as Tea Partiers, 58% believe government spending controls must not include any benefit changes in SS or Medicare. That is a result from the supposedly single most fiscally conservative politically identifiable group in the country.

I wish FR was representative of the electorate. Hell, as lame as it is, I wish the Republican Party was. But it isn't. Most people don't even understand that there is no Social Security "trust fund." Many of those who do still don't understand why the only feasible place for the government to have put the money (in a public scheme) is in public debt.

The truth is no politician is ever going to allow one dime of a promised Social Security benefit to go missing -- nominally, at least. Consequently that debt will be monetized with consequences nearly as devastating as default, and everyone, not merely the recipients will pay.

Those demanding their benefits do not now, and will not ever, believe that Social Security is a tax to be paid into the general revenue. And based on the law, what politicians have promised them, and their own expectations, they will be right. Dead right. But right all the same.

But allowing them to count their entitlement withholding as entitlements on one hand, and taxes on the other, is double counting. And that double counting allows people who are making NO contribution to the country's common defense or general welfare to scream that they're "taxed" on the one hand, and "entitled" on the other.

It can't be both.

And it isn't.

We need to tax the poor; it's time to stop giving them excuses for not contributing. That is what you and the Democrat talking heads are doing by insisting that SS/MC withholding is the same kind of tax as the FIT.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.