Liberal Forum

Fuelman » 25 Nov 2023, 3:17 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2023, 3:17 pm

The OP was specific by my reading. Marginal and effective income tax rates from one time frame compared to another. The OP also was talking about a "typical American".

"So, can any of you conservative retards EXPLAIN, how is it back in the 1950s-1980s, when MARGINAL tax rates were much higher than today, the typical American actually paid a LOWER EFFECTIVE tax rate than they do today?"

Moving the goal post and changing it to total federal tax liability of all income groups is another story.

You know some dummy in the bottom 50% paying 13.2% in Social Security tax?  Let me guess, you told him he would get a bigger SS check?

That is the amount workers pay - period. It comes right off the top of their wages. In fact, the so-called "employer's share" isn't even RECORDED as their wages. But it IS their wages. The employer does not have to pay one penny of that unless the fellow they are paying it on works for it. No work no pay - so it isn't an employer tax. It is a tax SPECIFICALLY on that employee's labor - period. Games are for children - this here is REAL TALK, nigga!
 

Cannonpointer » 25 Nov 2023, 6:21 pm » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2023, 6:21 pm

That is the amount workers pay - period. It comes right off the top of their wages. In fact, the so-called "employer's share" isn't even RECORDED as their wages. But it IS their wages. The employer does not have to pay one penny of that unless the fellow they are paying it on works for it. No work no pay - so it isn't an employer tax. It is a tax SPECIFICALLY on that employee's labor - period. Games are for children - this here is REAL TALK, nigga!

I see your point and have used the employer portion added to my contribution to see total put into social security.

By definition though, FICA taxes are an excise tax on employers and fully deductible.

"The law requires employers to withhold taxes from employee earnings to fund the Social Security and Medicare programs. These are called Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes. Your employer also pays a tax equal to the amount withheld from employee earnings. The self-employed pay Self-Employed Contributions Act (SECA) taxes on net earnings. SECA taxes also fund Social Security and Medicare. The self-employed pay both the employee and the employer share of SECA. But the law permits them to deduct half of the self-employment tax as a business expense."

I have two friends who were self employed for most of their working careers. They played the game and hid earnings to minimize FICA taxes. Pretty sure they both earned far more money than I did. It would have worked out for them if they actually saved that money but they didn't. When 62 rolled around, they both receive less than the average SS at 62 which is $1250/mo..

I don't think you need to add those tax percentages to a worker to show they are getting screwed by the system. As I've said before, 10% are doing well, the next 10% will survive and the bottom 80% are a few paychecks from disaster.

Yes , Republicans love them some tax cuts, but you have to admit without that push tax rates would definitely be higher. I'm convinced that Euro Zone tax rates will end up here in the future. It's the only way to address the healthcare situation.
 

Fuelman » 25 Nov 2023, 10:28 am » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2023, 10:28 am

Federal tax brackets 1970 / 25
Federal tax brackets 1980 / 16
Federal tax brackets 2022 / 7

Average household income 1980 / $21,000
Average household income 2022 / $74,500

Poverty rate 1980 / 13%
Poverty rate 2022 / 11.5%

Percentage of households who paid ZERO net federal taxes 1980 / 19.8%
Percentage of households who paid ZERO net federal taxes 2022 / 40.1%

An ever smaller percentage of people are paying the bills these days.

Rocket Science!

Cooked numbers mean nothing, and when I refer to taxes I am referring to all taxes. Whether $1 goes to the feduhroll gubmint or to state (incl sales tax) and local (incl property tax) makes zero difference.

A minimum wage worker back in 1963 was paid 5 junk silver quarters. The value of that junk silver is about $24 today.

What is the effective, COMBINED tax rate of someone making $1.25/hr back in 1963? 

Now do the same for someone making $24/hr today. I can tell you without even looking up all the various tax rates #1 was taxed less.
 

Fuelman » 25 Nov 2023, 10:28 am » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2023, 10:28 am

Federal tax brackets 1970 / 25
Federal tax brackets 1980 / 16
Federal tax brackets 2022 / 7

Average household income 1980 / $21,000
Average household income 2022 / $74,500

Poverty rate 1980 / 13%
Poverty rate 2022 / 11.5%

Percentage of households who paid ZERO net federal taxes 1980 / 19.8%
Percentage of households who paid ZERO net federal taxes 2022 / 40.1%

An ever smaller percentage of people are paying the bills these days.

Rocket Science!

For a "capitalist" you sure trust all the garbage the gubmint puts out.

If you actually think the way the feduhroll gubmint measures poverty is remotely accurate that's just beyond sad. (IrreleVANT anyway)

The way tax burdens should be calculated based on income earned from various periods is also not easy to calculate due to the various hidden traps.

I already gave you a working example. The MW back in 1963 was 5 silver junk quarters. If you naively plugged $1.25 into an inflation calculator you would get something around $11-12 today, but that's not accurate. You need to do manual adjustments (in this case, the actual value of 90% silver) to find out what that $1.25 is today.


 You give me gubmint #s of something like $21K in 1970 and $74.5K in 2022. Actually if you did a fair value adjustment of that $21K in 1970 you would realize $74.5K does not even come close. Maybe something like $120K would be comparable. 
 

Fuelman » 26 Nov 2023, 9:01 am » wrote: ↑

26 Nov 2023, 9:01 am

I see your point and have used the employer portion added to my contribution to see total put into social security.

By definition though, FICA taxes are an excise tax on employers and fully deductible.

On days that you do not work, does the employer pay that tax?

If so, it is a tax on him.

If not, it is a tax on your labor.

I cannot make it any simpler to comprehend. I suspect a kid could grasp it. I'm convinced adults will grasp it.

LowIQTrash » 26 Nov 2023, 11:19 am » wrote: ↑

26 Nov 2023, 11:19 am

For a "capitalist" you sure trust all the garbage the gubmint puts out.

If you actually think the way the feduhroll gubmint measures poverty is remotely accurate that's just beyond sad. (IrreleVANT anyway)

The way tax burdens should be calculated based on income earned from various periods is also not easy to calculate due to the various hidden traps.

I already gave you a working example. The MW back in 1963 was 5 silver junk quarters. If you naively plugged $1.25 into an inflation calculator you would get something around $11-12 today, but that's not accurate. You need to do manual adjustments (in this case, the actual value of 90% silver) to find out what that $1.25 is today.


 You give me gubmint #s of something like $21K in 1970 and $74.5K in 2022. Actually if you did a fair value adjustment of that $21K in 1970 you would realize $74.5K does not even come close. Maybe something like $120K would be comparable. 
 

For an ancestor limited to adapting as timed apart here, you sure ignore living uniquely timed apart in your own skin as eternally separated in plain sight.

Time doesn't move but everything evolving into a new total sum achieved so far exists one ata time now as geographically universally present in plain sight adapting to the moment shared since conceived.

Cannonpointer » 26 Nov 2023, 1:07 pm » wrote: ↑

26 Nov 2023, 1:07 pm

On days that you do not work, does the employer pay that tax?

If so, it is a tax on him.

If not, it is a tax on your labor.

I cannot make it any simpler to comprehend. I suspect a kid could grasp it. I'm convinced adults will grasp it.

I suppose with a little effort, an adult could explain to a child the "tax on your labor","payroll taxes", is not the scary monster living under your bed.

Most adults know that payroll taxes are an investment in a lifetime annuity and healthcare coverage at 65.
Is it really a tax on your labor when you receive all that money back plus a bonus? (If you live long enough)(we could use more taxes like that right?)The Employer gets ZERO benefit, only an added cost of doing business and of course gets passed onto the consumer. Suppose I should correct myself and say the employer portion is a tax on consumers. Sorry little guys, double **** for you.

The wife has a sweet little part time gig with full time benefits and she (or the employer) doesn't pay social security taxes. Is there a reason why her labor isn't taxed? Could it be possible that "tax on labor" is connected to something else? It only takes 3 brain cells to figure it out, luckily I have 4!

Sure, payroll taxes suck for those at the bottom. They should count their lucky stars such a program exists cause the odds of ending up a have not is pretty high. Those higher wage earners complain just as much, if not more, as I've done in the past. What could the wife and I have done with $578k in payroll taxes over the years? Turn it into millions or blow it in the casinos! I'm glad the benefit is there for us and anyone else. I'm enjoying the hell out of my tax on labor! Unfortunately people make bad decisions and have zero luck and FDR had the foresight to attempt a fix. Not perfect by any means.

I'll give you the win if you tweak that statement a bit to "tax on labor with benefits"

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

I suppose with a little effort, an adult could explain to a child the "tax on your labor","payroll taxes", is not the scary monster living under your bed.

Most adults know that payroll taxes are an investment in a lifetime annuity and healthcare coverage at 65.
Is it really a tax on your labor when you receive all that money back plus a bonus? (If you live long enough)(we could use more taxes like that right?)The Employer gets ZERO benefit, only an added cost of doing business and of course gets passed onto the consumer. Suppose I should correct myself and say the employer portion is a tax on consumers. Sorry little guys, double **** for you.

The wife has a sweet little part time gig with full time benefits and she (or the employer) doesn't pay social security taxes. Is there a reason why her labor isn't taxed? Could it be possible that "tax on labor" is connected to something else? It only takes 3 brain cells to figure it out, luckily I have 4!

Sure, payroll taxes suck for those at the bottom. They should count their lucky stars such a program exists cause the odds of ending up a have not is pretty high. Those higher wage earners complain just as much, if not more, as I've done in the past. What could the wife and I have done with $578k in payroll taxes over the years? Turn it into millions or blow it in the casinos! I'm glad the benefit is there for us and anyone else. I'm enjoying the hell out of my tax on labor! Unfortunately people make bad decisions and have zero luck and FDR had the foresight to attempt a fix. Not perfect by any means.

I'll give you the win if you tweak that statement a bit to "tax on labor with benefits"

You are right in theory, but the payroll tax both employee and employers goes into the general fund and replaced with worthless government "IOU'S" (Treasury Bonds) and promptly spent.  You have Reagan and Greenspan to thank for the biggest heist in American history.  With the help of Alan Greenspan, Reagan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people to pay mounting government debt caused by Reagan's tax cuts for his rich buddies.

Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.

The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

 Social Security cannot pay full benefits for a single year without borrowing money. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they have no monetary value. They are worthless!

One way to fix the system is to make ALL incomes (earned and unearned) subject to the tax with NO caps on income.
 
 

LowIQTrash » 25 Nov 2023, 1:31 am » wrote: ↑

25 Nov 2023, 1:31 am

How useless are you dogsh*t conjobs? CAN'T DO A SINGLE JOB PROPERLY?
 

For the following "jobs", you must first dial 1, then "CANNONP"

• nosejobs
• nutjobs
• Rimjobs and
• blowjobs

For boobjobs, dial 1, then BKNAKED, or his assistant RUSSIAN

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

I suppose with a little effort, an adult could explain to a child the "tax on your labor","payroll taxes", is not the scary monster living under your bed.

Who called it that?

Let me guess - conjobs who assiduously delete it from the record when sucking up to billionaires?

It's a tax - period. A tax on labor that never gets cyphered in when servile conjobs prattle falsely and disingenuously about federal taxes.

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

Most adults know that payroll taxes are an investment in a lifetime annuity and healthcare coverage at 65.

Just as they know that income taxes are an investment in having a country that favors the uber-wealthy - who pay the smallest PERCENTAGE of their income of any demographic.

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

Is it really a tax on your labor

Yes.

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

when you receive all that money back plus a bonus?

Are you one of those who has called SOC SEC a ponzi scheme?

You don't get to call it a ponzi scheme when it suits you and money from home when THAT suits you. 

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

(If you live long enough)(we could use more taxes like that right?)The Employer gets ZERO benefit, only an added cost of doing business and of course gets passed onto the consumer. Suppose I should correct myself and say the employer portion is a tax on consumers. Sorry little guys, double **** for you.

You've had it explained that the tax is paid EXCLUSIVELY ON THE EMPLYEE'S LABOR.

If the employee does not work, the tax is not owed. It is a tax on that employee's labor.

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

The wife has a sweet little part time gig with full time benefits and she (or the employer) doesn't pay social security taxes. Is there a reason why her labor isn't taxed? Could it be possible that "tax on labor" is connected to something else? It only takes 3 brain cells to figure it out, luckily I have 4!

Sure, payroll taxes suck for those at the bottom.

What sucks is queers lying that the working class is under-taxed. IT ISN'T.

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

They should count their lucky stars such a program exists cause the odds of ending up a have not is pretty high.

So it is NOT A PONZI SCHEME.

Willing to live with that, or is that just a right-now argument?

And let's not muddy the **** record. I NEVER badmouthed the payroll tax - I was just rude enough to demand you acknowledge it exists.

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

Those higher wage earners complain just as much, if not more, as I've done in the past. What could the wife and I have done with $578k in payroll taxes over the years? Turn it into millions or blow it in the casinos! I'm glad the benefit is there for us and anyone else. I'm enjoying the hell out of my tax on labor! Unfortunately people make bad decisions and have zero luck and FDR had the foresight to attempt a fix. Not perfect by any means.

We can at least agree on that.

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 3:24 pm

I'll give you the win if you tweak that statement a bit to "tax on labor with benefits"

EVERY tax has benefits, including the payroll taxes - save one: the tax on the unborn to make enemies for them before they even take their first breath. I never called payroll taxes unjustified. I called omitting them from tallying up who pays federal **** taxes is the work of small minded dick suckers AND a major pet peeve.
 
 

Buffalo » 27 Nov 2023, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 4:00 pm

You are right in theory, but the payroll tax both employee and employers goes into the general fund and replaced with worthless government "IOU'S" (Treasury Bonds) and promptly spent.  You have Reagan and Greenspan to thank for the biggest heist in American history.  With the help of Alan Greenspan, Reagan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people to pay mounting government debt caused by Reagan's tax cuts for his rich buddies.

Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.

The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

 Social Security cannot pay full benefits for a single year without borrowing money. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they have no monetary value. They are worthless!

One way to fix the system is to make ALL incomes (earned and unearned) subject to the tax with NO caps on income.

Most people have that same understanding .

There is another take by some that would disagree:
this is quite a few years old.

The federal government hasn't pilfered a dime from Social SecurityThe fact is that Congress, despite borrowing $2.9 trillion from Social Security, hasn't pilfered or misappropriated a red cent from the program. Regardless of whether Social Security was presented as a unified budget under Lyndon B. Johnson or as a separate entity (i.e., off budget), none of its funding has been conflated with normal federal spending. What's more, Social Security is already generating interest income from the federal government on its borrowing. As of Dec. 31, 2018, the $2.9 trillion in special-issue bonds and certificates of indebtedness were yielding an average of 2.85%. Since these bonds range in maturity from 1 to 15 years, there's plenty of opportunity to take advantage of rising yields and adjust the program's bond investments as needed.  Ultimately, Congress' borrowing allowed Social Security to collect $85.1 billion in interest income for 2017, and it's expected to provide $804 billion in aggregate interest income between 2018 and 2027. In other words, when opponents of this borrowing complain about the program not receiving interest, they're simply not doing their homework. Making matters worse, some folks want to see this borrowing repaid in full. Doing so would require the federal government to find $2.9 trillion in borrowing elsewhere if that happened. But more importantly, it would deprive the program of valuable interest income, pushing Social Security into the red very quickly. Cash sitting around in a vault would do no one any good as it'd be losing purchasing power almost every year to inflation. Lastly, regardless of whether Social Security owns government-issued bonds or cash, it doesn't change the asset reserves held by the program. It's $2.9 trillion either way. To suggest that repaying these bonds would put the program on more solid footing is simply not correct, as it'd have no impact on the program's total assets, and it would actually hurt its revenue-generating prospects. Long story short, Congress is in the clear on this one.
 

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 5:28 pm

Most people have that same understanding .

There is another take by some that would disagree:
this is quite a few years old.

The federal government hasn't pilfered a dime from Social SecurityThe fact is that Congress, despite borrowing $2.9 trillion from Social Security, hasn't pilfered or misappropriated a red cent from the program. Regardless of whether Social Security was presented as a unified budget under Lyndon B. Johnson or as a separate entity (i.e., off budget), none of its funding has been conflated with normal federal spending. What's more, Social Security is already generating interest income from the federal government on its borrowing. As of Dec. 31, 2018, the $2.9 trillion in special-issue bonds and certificates of indebtedness were yielding an average of 2.85%. Since these bonds range in maturity from 1 to 15 years, there's plenty of opportunity to take advantage of rising yields and adjust the program's bond investments as needed.  Ultimately, Congress' borrowing allowed Social Security to collect $85.1 billion in interest income for 2017, and it's expected to provide $804 billion in aggregate interest income between 2018 and 2027. In other words, when opponents of this borrowing complain about the program not receiving interest, they're simply not doing their homework. Making matters worse, some folks want to see this borrowing repaid in full. Doing so would require the federal government to find $2.9 trillion in borrowing elsewhere if that happened. But more importantly, it would deprive the program of valuable interest income, pushing Social Security into the red very quickly. Cash sitting around in a vault would do no one any good as it'd be losing purchasing power almost every year to inflation. Lastly, regardless of whether Social Security owns government-issued bonds or cash, it doesn't change the asset reserves held by the program. It's $2.9 trillion either way. To suggest that repaying these bonds would put the program on more solid footing is simply not correct, as it'd have no impact on the program's total assets, and it would actually hurt its revenue-generating prospects. Long story short, Congress is in the clear on this one.

The ONLY FEDERAL BONDS NOT FUNGIBLE ON THE OPEN MARKET, by law, are the ones social security purchases - thanks, Ron Reagan. 

They've stolen it - they just haven't effectuated the theft YET.
 

Buffalo » 27 Nov 2023, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 4:00 pm

You are right in theory, but the payroll tax both employee and employers goes into the general fund and replaced with worthless government "IOU'S" (Treasury Bonds) and promptly spent.  You have Reagan and Greenspan to thank for the biggest heist in American history.  With the help of Alan Greenspan, Reagan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people to pay mounting government debt caused by Reagan's tax cuts for his rich buddies.

Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.

The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

 Social Security cannot pay full benefits for a single year without borrowing money. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they have no monetary value. They are worthless!

One way to fix the system is to make ALL incomes (earned and unearned) subject to the tax with NO caps on income.

Lol - the rich would have to pay that.

Never gonna happen - and the conjobs will scream to high heaven that the rich SHOULDN'T pay that tax. They'll even provide you with handy talking points the rich slipped in their pocket while they were doing the suckoff shuffle.
 

Fuelman » 27 Nov 2023, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 5:28 pm

Most people have that same understanding .

There is another take by some that would disagree:
this is quite a few years old.

The federal government hasn't pilfered a dime from Social SecurityThe fact is that Congress, despite borrowing $2.9 trillion from Social Security, hasn't pilfered or misappropriated a red cent from the program. Regardless of whether Social Security was presented as a unified budget under Lyndon B. Johnson or as a separate entity (i.e., off budget), none of its funding has been conflated with normal federal spending. What's more, Social Security is already generating interest income from the federal government on its borrowing. As of Dec. 31, 2018, the $2.9 trillion in special-issue bonds and certificates of indebtedness were yielding an average of 2.85%. Since these bonds range in maturity from 1 to 15 years, there's plenty of opportunity to take advantage of rising yields and adjust the program's bond investments as needed.  Ultimately, Congress' borrowing allowed Social Security to collect $85.1 billion in interest income for 2017, and it's expected to provide $804 billion in aggregate interest income between 2018 and 2027. In other words, when opponents of this borrowing complain about the program not receiving interest, they're simply not doing their homework. Making matters worse, some folks want to see this borrowing repaid in full. Doing so would require the federal government to find $2.9 trillion in borrowing elsewhere if that happened. But more importantly, it would deprive the program of valuable interest income, pushing Social Security into the red very quickly. Cash sitting around in a vault would do no one any good as it'd be losing purchasing power almost every year to inflation. Lastly, regardless of whether Social Security owns government-issued bonds or cash, it doesn't change the asset reserves held by the program. It's $2.9 trillion either way. To suggest that repaying these bonds would put the program on more solid footing is simply not correct, as it'd have no impact on the program's total assets, and it would actually hurt its revenue-generating prospects. Long story short, Congress is in the clear on this one.

There is no money is the SS Trust Fund!!! The trust fund balance is the result of two accounting entries by the Treasury.   What you are referring to is just worthless paper assets.  There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any.  The debt you are referring to that the government owes the trust fund is OWED BY THE TAXPAYERS which are the government's only source of income.  The government is BROKE!!! There is no way to repay the pilfered tax money the govenment has spent on wars, tax cuts for the rich and other government waste.

Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. It is unmarketable!!!

According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:

These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.

 
 

Buffalo » 27 Nov 2023, 7:19 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 7:19 pm

There is no money is the SS Trust Fund!!! The trust fund balance is the result of two accounting entries by the Treasury.   What you are referring to is just worthless paper assets.  There is no cash in the Social Security trust fund, and there never has been any.  The debt you are referring to that the government owes the trust fund is OWED BY THE TAXPAYERS which are the government's only source of income.  The government is BROKE!!! There is no way to repay the pilfered tax money the govenment has spent on wars, tax cuts for the rich and other government waste.

Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. It is unmarketable!!!

According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:

I learned all about this way back in early 1970's. Realities govern society beyond the natural limitations of evolving in plain sight. Intellectual design doesn't define natural timing of results adapting in space specifically here now.

Intellectual governance operates within reasonable doubt. Why America created its Constitution to defend instinctive awareness. the only intellectual country in history to try to do it.

It didn't last at the same time never went away. Instincts are added when conceived, intellect is nurtured after birth.

Buffalo » 27 Nov 2023, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Nov 2023, 4:00 pm

You are right in theory, but the payroll tax both employee and employers goes into the general fund and replaced with worthless government "IOU'S" (Treasury Bonds) and promptly spent.  You have Reagan and Greenspan to thank for the biggest heist in American history.  With the help of Alan Greenspan, Reagan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people to pay mounting government debt caused by Reagan's tax cuts for his rich buddies.

Instead of being a proud day for America, April 20, 1983, has become a day of shame. The Social Security Amendments of 1983 laid the foundation for 30-years of federal embezzlement of Social Security money in order to use the money to pay for wars, tax cuts and other government programs.

The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. This surplus revenue was supposed to be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury bonds that would be held in the trust fund until the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010. But not one dime of that money went to Social Security.

 Social Security cannot pay full benefits for a single year without borrowing money. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they have no monetary value. They are worthless!

One way to fix the system is to make ALL incomes (earned and unearned) subject to the tax with NO caps on income.

Seriously, what makes you think that raising ANY taxes to ANY height would fix the system, when every time it's done, Congress takes that as an invitation to simply spend more than the increase realizes, and that raises the debt even higher?

There will NEVER be a tax hike large enough to fix the system until they're forced to cut spending, whether the reason given for the raise is to stabilize SS, fund proxy wars, throw hundreds of billions at the hoax of climate change, increase welfare benefits, fund the massive number of illegals, or pay to add 85 thousand IRS agents who will harass small businesses and middle-income Americans to steal more of their earnings. 
 

Zeets2 » 28 Nov 2023, 8:28 am » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2023, 8:28 am

Seriously, what makes you think that raising ANY taxes to ANY height would fix the system, when every time it's done, Congress takes that as an invitation to simply spend more than the increase realizes, and that raises the debt even higher?

There will NEVER be a tax hike large enough to fix the system until they're forced to cut spending, whether the reason given for the raise is to stabilize SS, fund proxy wars, throw hundreds of billions at the hoax of climate change, increase welfare benefits, fund the massive number of illegals, or pay to add 85 thousand IRS agents who will harass small businesses and middle-income Americans to steal more of their earnings. 
 

the flaw in the system is ignoring actual time evolving. Everyone believes life exceeds genetic displacements adapting as displaced. Living a lifetime reproduced to replace previous ancestry doesn't.

that is the corruption humanity protects until extinction arrives in every intellectual promise of better tomorrows when everyone sacrifices their instinctive awareness of mutually timed apart now.

Evolving is free to those born in this adapt or become extinct universal order of naturally timed paart now. Humanity is a pay to stay in character theaters of doubt organized to keep each last replacements honoring traditional ideas since dawn of civilization.

What that produced in each reproduction is doing the same ideas every generation ancestors are never same people added another generation forward.
Just some become parents that don't out live their next generations that have children making their parents 1 of 4 grandparents, their grandchildren making their grandparents 1 of 8 great grandparents.

Chromosome compounding chain reaction of ever changing population inception to extinction with each conception to dead lifetime added.

Zeets2 » 28 Nov 2023, 8:28 am » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2023, 8:28 am

Seriously, what makes you think that raising ANY taxes to ANY height would fix the system, when every time it's done, Congress takes that as an invitation to simply spend more than the increase realizes, and that raises the debt even higher?

There will NEVER be a tax hike large enough to fix the system until they're forced to cut spending, whether the reason given for the raise is to stabilize SS, fund proxy wars, throw hundreds of billions at the hoax of climate change, increase welfare benefits, fund the massive number of illegals, or pay to add 85 thousand IRS agents who will harass small businesses and middle-income Americans to steal more of their earnings.

The rich will never be taxed their fair share of SS, especially on their massive unearned incomes, either.  They own the greedy bastards in the WH and Congress!!! 99% of the legislation that comes out of DC to fund illegal, unConstitutional wars, phony climate change, or the expansion of big brother is to ultimately further enrich their wealthy benefactors.
 

Remember, figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Part of the problem is people are talking about different calculations, thus they are comparing apples and oranges. There are three types of commonly accepted rates; the effective tax rate is the percentage owed on taxable income...the marginal tax rate is the amount of tax owed on every additional dollar...the average tax rate is the total tax liability divided by total income. These are three different calculations, and people tend to pick the one that best fits their partisan position. Comparing the effective tax rate on someone who is very wealthy to the average middle or lower class worker is stupid because they have very different sources of income. And to add social security and medicare taxes to income taxes without considering fuel taxes, sales taxes, etc. is hypocritical. A person who owns a small local delivery service is paying a lot more in fuel taxes than the average person. To say someone like Bezos is getting more wealthy by using taxpayer roads without calculating how much Amazon pays in fuel taxes, tolls, etc. is just being a partisan idiot. A wealthy person who travels extensively (either for business or pleasure) is paying more in taxes buried in airline tickets, hotel rates, auto rentals, etc. than middle class Joe Schmuck.

An additional problem with the comparisons is there are different types of income, some are not taxed and others are taxed at different rates. This is because we (the US) use our tax code to either encourage or discourage certain types of behavior. To really compare, you need to know what the "pet social issue" was during specific time frames. For example, where we encouraging capital investments and thus had lower capital gains tax rates...was the percentage of household having all adults working going up, thus the child care tax cut was different...what was the minimum and maximum thresholds for certain deductions like medical expenses and charitable contributions...etc.

Besides, nobody ever said life would be fair. If someone did tell you that...THEY LIED!
 

Buffalo » 28 Nov 2023, 8:54 am » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2023, 8:54 am

The rich will never be taxed their fair share of SS, especially on their massive unearned incomes, either.  They own the greedy bastards in the WH and Congress!!! 99% of the legislation that comes out of DC to fund illegal, unConstitutional wars, phony climate change, or the expansion of big brother is to ultimately further enrich their wealthy benefactors.
 

Nothing fair about taxation. It is planned obsolescence of a reality governing people for more than 5 generation gaps in a row. Keeps every generation gap believing taxes are part of evolving each lifetime owes an eternal debt of gratitude to society for being able to play roles of typecast people cradle to grave serving a higher intellect than their own instinctive ability to navigate time limited to mutually evolving forward now.