Posted on 10/23/2002 4:16:36 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
|
|||||
 |
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||||
|
FICA is a scam, and if you are younger than 40 years old, you lost all of that money.
Second, FICA is your retirement money and has nothing to do with financing the government.
If you detect a contradiction, don't tell me, tell the Democrap that refuses to admit that FICA is a scam and is an actual tax.
The bottom 50% of the population earns 13% of all income. Do you really need tables to figure out that the bottom 1% earns virtually nothing? Where's common sense?
But that is absolutly impossible! Those people in the top 50% have been paying literally TRILLIONS of dollars since 1965 to insure that everyone will have enough money.
Or, was this just another FICA scam?
Let's just start by saying everyone has to eat and there's a certain minimum cost involved. Read that metaphorically.
1) Fica hasn't been included
I don't think it should either unless you are also going to include future benefits as well. This is, or should be separate from the general operating fund of the government, despite the present practice of "borrowing" from SS funds. As well, there is a cutoff as to how much FICA one pays precisely due to there being a limit as to how much one can collect. So, to compare someone over the cutoff to someone below the cutoff is not valid. If SS retirement collections were unlimited, then a comparison could be made. Remember the purpose of Social Security - Supplemental income.
2) It's based on reported income. Sure, the people that have the highest Adjusted Gross Income are going to pay the most taxes. But if you have someone who made $1 million, has $600,000 in deductions, he'll be listed as having $400,000 in income, not $1 million. So the entire calculation is faulty.
This might be true except for a couple of things; first, I doubt if there are enough deductions avialable, year after year, to reduce a $1 million income to $400,000. If you're talking business expenses, well then that's another story. But, remember that business taxes are generally passed on to the consumer anyways. And business expenses are a necessity.
The other issue is the AMT (which has never been adjusted for inflation BTW). There are plenty of people with much smaller incomes that have been hit by this little beauty.
Frankly, I'm with you on one thing here; there ought not be any deductions. Taxes are not the proper method to steer people's activity. I also think a flat tax is the best, most fair way to collect the funds necessary to run the government. And I think that Social Security ought to be voluntary, not mandatory.
I'm just reading the statistics in the article. If you have a better explanation, fire away.
No arguments about your position from me. Well stated.
That's right. They earn virtually nothing and they pay virtually nothing. It's no longer legal to demand a pound of flesh.
Also consider that the vast majority of low-wage earners are high school and college kids living at home with Mom and Dad. Precious few are in financial straits. And I'll further say that most of those that are got that way by their own ambitions, or lack thereof. Like they may have beleived the likes of Jesse when he told them that the world owes them a living. Or something like that...
Yes, there are some hard cases, and most people hit hard times at some point in life, but you are taking a very small percentage of the population and making a broad generalization from it.
Reality is accepted by everyone living in America, and nobody would have a problem paying the same percentage of their income.
When the percentage increases because you work hard, now we have a problem. Will my vote be increased by the same percentage?
WHOOPS!! Math as a second language? I meant 10% of $1000 is $100. Sorry.
Well, you're being cheated. No doubt about it. But if you were paying 100 times what your neighbor did your vote would be counted 1000 times. That's the way the system works.
That is precisely the problem with the "progressive" tax rates (or should I say regressive since they punish the productive). The democRATS basically buy votes by taking money from one class of taxpayer and giving it to other folks who tend to vote for them. Its buying votes on a grand scale. Not that silly low-budget stuff that they do in Wisconsin.
The bottom 50% of the population earns 13% of all income.
The bottom 50% pays 4% of the taxes while earning the 13% of the income.
The top 50% pays 96% of the taxes on only 87% of the income.
Where's common sense?
Wake up, the distribution tax payment is skewed totally in favor of the poor, Because they control a greater proportionate vote.
To remove taxation of the individual, is to remove the goad which assures accountability of government to the electorate. Federal tax rates are high because a majority of the electorate do not share proportionately in the burden their demand for largesse imposes on the minority of citizens.
The siren call for representation without taxation is the formula that got us where we are at today. The ability to hide or disguise taxation from the view of large sectors of the electorate allows the Congress to get away with the creation of the evergrowing monster that it fosters.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-George Bernard Shaw
Liberty and freedom have a price, responsibility. If that price is avoided there are no brakes on the growth of government, the ultimate result is the end of freedom through creeping socialism.
Right now the bottom 60% perceive little to no "Individual Income Tax" burden,(in many cases even a handout) and 70% of the voting public clamors for more from government looking for the top 40% of income earners/producers to foot the bill.
That disproportionate scale is pandered to by the liberal establishment while keeping the poor just as they are through subsidies discouraging upward economic mobility.
Keyes on Taxes & Government Spending:
The intent of the structure of the individual income tax is for political and social mainpulation not revenue collection. The Individual Income tax is maintained to establish and hold every person in the country in perpetual legal jeopardy and to create artificial divisions among the electorate (rich vs. poor; big business vs. the little guy; etc).
Considering those factors, it is always good to remember the philosophical roots of the left which can be found here: Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848. Among their recommendations are these:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state ... . Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property ... . These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
That is a situation that must end with the repeal of the income tax from the statutes, and the prohibition of its use by Constitutional amendment that future generations will not face the same manner of manipulation and interference in their lives.
What planet are you describing?
Actually, two times in my life I have actually been homeless.
The first time, I lived in a tent on a mountain for 3 months until I was able to save enough to make the first and last downpayment for the rent of an appartment.
Second time, my wife and I moved to another State and it took us 9 months to finally get jobs in our professions.
Not once were we able to qualify for government assistance, since we "earned too much that year."
Actually, even if financial assistance was available, we would have refused it. Thanks, but we are not stupid enough to fall into that trap!
Funny how my views of life and government have been altered by personal experiences.
Oh yeah, and Illegal Aliens. :)
Seriously, you been to McDonalds lately? Or the local mall? Who's working there? Are they the primary earner? Most likely not. I don't know about where you live but our malls and Micky-D's are staffed primarily by HS and College aged workers with the occasional second-income spouse.
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.
