degsme
Council Member
Pretty much means that they are at most Status Quo left leaning centrists... yes and?By the same token, most of the millionaires in Congress are Democrats. And?
Pretty much means that they are at most Status Quo left leaning centrists... yes and?By the same token, most of the millionaires in Congress are Democrats. And?
Well you have now changed what you wrote above. Your claim above was the quesiton of why a $200k earner would want to support a system that garners him/her no or lesser monetary benefits. and that creating such a system would open the door to class warfare demagougery.I'm not certain that we do. What I said was you can't force me to pay into a system such as Social Security or Medicare throughout my working life, and then have the option to test my means at the end of my working life to see if I'm eligible to receive the benefits for which I've been paying. You said you agreed, but past statements would indicate you do not. Those past statements indicate that the money taken from individual citizens to pay for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are merely income taxation, linked in no way to the systems they are linked to by name.
First off, since the statement is factually false, (Every earner pays Federal taxes on income) all that follows is falseAnd its irrelevant, Degs, just like the statement about marital fidelity. The original question was "Is the current tax structure, with 53 percent of the people paying taxes and 47 percent of the people not doing so, sustainable?" The clear answer to that question is "no," whether your politics are right or left (and no, the "center" is not "left leaning," but that's the topic for another thread).
Same thing, Degs. What I had said before about means testing, for the +$200K club, is that they can't be expected to want to pay for a benefit they will receive only in part. It's my objection to further cuts in the Social Security I've already paid for, at my income level. I paid into a system that, whether it was written into the law or not, promised me at the beginning of my working life a specific benefit at the end of my working life (defined as age 65). Now it has been arbitrarily decided that my working life doesn't end until age 67. I'm 49 now. If I were 29 I think I'd be concerned that the benefit date would become an endlessly moving target that I would never reach (a little like the 25 missions, then 50 missions, then 100 missions a WWII bomber pilot was supposed to fly before being cycled home).Well you have now changed what you wrote above. Your claim above was the quesiton of why a $200k earner would want to support a system that garners him/her no or lesser monetary benefits. and that creating such a system would open the door to class warfare demagougery.
Now you are changing it to a "pay in for your life" system presumption rather than the simply political analysis.
No its not.Same thing, Degs.
None of that is actually true.The European Union is hanging on by a thread as I type this. They also went the heavy duty socialism route and it broke nation after nation as a result.
No that's not accurate either. Becuase they do not get FICA refunded. The whole premise of this is that FICA doesn't count. Which would be OK if you then took SS and Medicare off the discussion table of "sustainability".... But that them leaves Defense Spending as over 50% of the budget.So, what works better then for you...semantically...47% of those paying in receive that back in the form of rebates and tax abatements?
They have higher per capita GDP production. Mostly as a result of natural resource extraction - which is then used to fund the government. But the key is that they fund the government at adquate rates. We choose not to.How do Qatar and Kuwait sustain public services/social services and the like at such low rates?
Well essentially they tax the hell out of the richest people in their country. The way all monachies do.they apply revenue from huge earnings from nat resource extraction..to their public services..we cant say same.. were it from taxation revenues.their situation would be less sustainable.
But almost no one is speaking of limiting benefits across the board. Some speak of means testing, which is not an across-the-board limit, and others (you), ignore the fact that we a already taxing the working class to pay benefits for retirees and indigents. FICA isn't, as you pointed out, refunded in any way except for the distribution of "benefits" either at the end of the taxpayer's working life or as charity to the disabled and other indigent recipients. So say what you mean -- you think class warfare is OK, and that it is fine for the government to take from the "rich" (at whatever income level we define as rich) to give to the "poor" (at whatever income level we define as poor), and that you wish we did this more than we do today. Then we can have our discussion about class warfare and the meaning of justice based on terms all can understand.No its not.
Means testing creates an economic class distinction. Limiting benefits across the board does not.
First off, since the statement is factually false, (Every earner pays Federal taxes on income) all that follows is false
Secondly, there is nothing inherent in 47% not paying taxes that is unsustainable. Places like Qatar and Kuwait have even lower rates of taxation and yet they are completely sustainable.
You are arguing ideology here and not demonstrating any sort of actual reasoning.
YUP and it does not offset their FICA fully except in the rarest of cases. Max EITC benefit is roughly 20% of income http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=462 And FICA+Base INcome tax == 17%Wrong, as usual. Ever heard of the Earned Income Tax Credit???
Some people actually, instead of paying IN, get money back.
mirror mirrorYou really need to educate yourself before bleating up.
yes - and I linked them.got facts?
True but they are Taxing the Wealthy and the vast majority doesn't pay a dime in taxes. And yet it is sustainable.Oh...and....psst!
The USA is NOT Kuwait or Qatar. Not even close. (f'in duh)