• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Republican civil war is just getting started

stop lying. Payroll taxes are not included as Federal Income taxes. Your rants about Limbaugh are just plain pavlovian nonsense.

A tax is a tax is a tax is a tax.

Pretending that ones FICA taxes are NOT a tax is the lie. But don't believe me - here is a verifiable source for the evidence

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[h=1]Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax[/h]From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from FICA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)[SUP][2][/SUP] —federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers. Social Security benefits include old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); Medicare provides hospital insurance benefits for the elderly. The amount that one pays in payroll taxes throughout one's working career is associated indirectly with the social security benefits annuity that one receives as a retiree.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] This has caused some to claim that the payroll tax is not a tax because its collection is tied to a benefit.[SUP][3][/SUP]

the far right tries to create a dishonest and fraudulent stage on which to discuss the issue of taxation when they attempt to exclude FICA taxes from the discussion. As we all know, the wealthy pay a very tiny portion of their income in FICA tax while average workers pay proportionately hundreds of times more in percentage of income than many millionaires do.
 
Last edited:
Uh, no. Any monies taken from an individual involuntarily by his/her govt. based on his income is an income tax. The fact that those monies are redistributed, or that the govt. claims it will be (which no sensible person would trust) is irrelevant.

Furthermore, any claim on the equitability of the federal tax system (i. e. the notion that the upper 5% pay the most taxes) would only be credible if it were based on the total federal tax burden incurred by everyone, NOT just a portion of that tax.

Claiming that the upper 5% pays the most taxes by excluding that portion of the tax bill incurred mostly by the lower 95% is therefore meaningless, i. e. something rush limbaugh would say.

HINT.

that's just plain stupid. the rich have a far higher total tax burden in terms of actual dollars

game set match and don't fail with the idiotic Limbaugh nonsense again
 
Perhaps you should look at this before you consider the tpers to be anything but nonsense. . .

Tea Party loses a top voice with Bachmann departure

Like I said...there are some who spout ultra-right nonsense. Tell me, has she ever had any influence in Congress? What has she ever done besides talk?

In any event, did you read that link I gave? How does their stated aims compare to your ultra-left nonsense? Who should one believe...them, stating their objectives...or you? Hmmm?
 
Oh look, it's a constitutionalist who hasn't read the constitution.

anytime you want to take me on, feel free to do so.

as for reading the constitution, federalist papers, letters of the founders, works of the founders, ..yes I have read much.....have you?
 
Fundamentally, Tea Party wants reduced government size, scope and power...and that's pretty much it. Oh, for sure, there are isolated people from the Tea Party who spout off with ultra-right nonsense, but they don't have any real power or influence with the rest of them.

Now, you...with all your drivel about supply-side economics and racism...well, let's just say that I see you as someone spouting off with ultra-left nonsense.

Perhaps this link will help you understand them. Tea Party Movement Platform I don't see anything in there about supply-side economics or racism.

For dog sake, number 1 in their platform is all about supplyside economics. It's the idea that the government can reduce taxes and bring in more revenue from taxes. Bush 2 destroyed that notion for good!

Clearly the US is not taxing enough but there are various reasons for that. Tax shelters, backroom deals, exemptions for the wealthy, you name it, it's being used. It's going to bankrupt your government enough so that social programs which are necessary in a modern first wold society are eliminated and that's when the kickback from the ordinary joe begins.

And it's pretty clear that the baggers don't understand who it is that isn't paying enough taxes. Dog knows they think they're paying too much. Your political system has fixed it so the wealthy just aren't paying their fair share anymore. That's the easy part to figure out.

As for racism amongst the baggers, that's been well demonstrated so no amount of denial is going to erase the fact. You're right about there being ultra-righters within the tea baggers. There is just not a will to get shod of them because they can't afford to right now. They need all the fringe support from extremists and racists they can get.

I've seen this all before with Canada's reform party. They refused to clean house and that led to their fracturing and defeat at the polls. The same will happen to the baggers because there is nothing cohesive enough to hold them together after the racist element is defanged with the end of Obama.

This is free advice so ignore it if you like.
 
I see where this is going, so why don't you address the point.....
LOL - you "see where this is going" so you don't answer the question.
No one has done more to raise the debt to GDP ratio, than Reagan and the Bush's.
...and no one has raised it to higher levels than Obama.
Prior to Obama, who was dealt absolute crap and who has contributed 10% to the debt to GDP ratio compared to an increase of 70% between Reagan and the Bush's. :confused:
Funny, I never heard Obama complaining about "the hand he was dealt." Frankly, what he needs is people apologizing for the crappy way he's been playing his hand since.
 
Further evidence of this commingling is now people believe that social security is an area we can reign in, calling it broke, even though it is fully funded 15 years out....

Funny how the SSA quit sending out the annual statements showing how much you have contributed and what you should expect to receive when retired. Everyone I got came with a warning on the statement to the effect that you may not receive what they expect to pay you because enough money may not be available.

Fully funded is a joke.
 
For dog sake, number 1 in their platform is all about supplyside economics. It's the idea that the government can reduce taxes and bring in more revenue from taxes. Bush 2 destroyed that notion for good!

Clearly the US is not taxing enough but there are various reasons for that. Tax shelters, backroom deals, exemptions for the wealthy, you name it, it's being used. It's going to bankrupt your government enough so that social programs which are necessary in a modern first wold society are eliminated and that's when the kickback from the ordinary joe begins.

And it's pretty clear that the baggers don't understand who it is that isn't paying enough taxes. Dog knows they think they're paying too much. Your political system has fixed it so the wealthy just aren't paying their fair share anymore. That's the easy part to figure out.

As for racism amongst the baggers, that's been well demonstrated so no amount of denial is going to erase the fact. You're right about there being ultra-righters within the tea baggers. There is just not a will to get shod of them because they can't afford to right now. They need all the fringe support from extremists and racists they can get.

I've seen this all before with Canada's reform party. They refused to clean house and that led to their fracturing and defeat at the polls. The same will happen to the baggers because there is nothing cohesive enough to hold them together after the racist element is defanged with the end of Obama.

This is free advice so ignore it if you like.

Your CANADIAN!!!??

LOL!!

Yes, you are right. Thanks for telling me. Now I have TWO reasons to ignore your blather...ultra-left nonsense...coming from a Canadian.
 
that's just plain stupid. the rich have a far higher total tax burden in terms of actual dollars

What's stupid is your inability to cite the actual numbers to back that up, even though we've :lol:ed at you forever and asked you like 10 times :rolleyes:
 
Your CANADIAN!!!??

LOL!!

Yes, you are right. Thanks for telling me. Now I have TWO reasons to ignore your blather...ultra-left nonsense...coming from a Canadian.

True enough, ultra left nonsense for many Americans but right in the middle for the rest of the world. Remember pal, it's your country that is falling apart and failing, not Canada. Maybe there's a good reason why? Ya think? Or are the left and the right on this forum making up all the problems we are hearing about?
 
A tax is a tax is a tax is a tax.

Pretending that ones FICA taxes are NOT a tax is the lie. But don't believe me - here is a verifiable source for the evidence

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



the far right tries to create a dishonest and fraudulent stage on which to discuss the issue of taxation when they attempt to exclude FICA taxes from the discussion. As we all know, the wealthy pay a very tiny portion of their income in FICA tax while average workers pay proportionately hundreds of times more in percentage of income than many millionaires do.

I wonder if turtledude can tell us what pct. of the FICA tax is refunded to the individual the subsequent filing year after it's deducted from one's earnings by the government in a given tax year, if say, an individual earned $70,000 that year in wages.

Don't help. I want to see if he can answer it himself. However, if he's an earning, taxpaying American who either earns a wage or employs someone who does, he would know that pct.
 
Last edited:
For dog sake, number 1 in their platform is all about supplyside economics. It's the idea that the government can reduce taxes and bring in more revenue from taxes. Bush 2 destroyed that notion for good!



"But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Read more: DWYER: Bush tax cuts boosted federal revenue - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



Things do get "destroyed". Many times it's by tax increases, other times it's by facts.
 
What's stupid is your inability to cite the actual numbers to back that up, even though we've :lol:ed at you forever and asked you like 10 times :rolleyes:

I don't tend to cater to the demands of posters whose posts are generally dishonest and fail to honestly address the issue
 
what relevance does that have? what are payroll "taxes" SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR

Please explain how the govt's claims about what tax monies are used for (which are frequently false) makes those monies not be a tax.

This should be more fun :lmao:
 
Please explain how the govt's claims about what tax monies are used for (which are frequently false) makes those monies not be a tax.

This should be more fun :lmao:

Please explain why you have continually danced around the fact that the top 5% pay more than half of the Federal Income Tax and have dishonestly pretended that payroll taxes (aka "contributions to the social security, medicare etc)
 
Please explain why you have continually danced around the fact that the top 5% pay more than half of the Federal Income Tax

Because every single time anyone has asked you to cite the evidence for it, you crawl back under your shell :rolleyes: .
 
True enough, ultra left nonsense for many Americans but right in the middle for the rest of the world. Remember pal, it's your country that is falling apart and failing, not Canada. Maybe there's a good reason why? Ya think? Or are the left and the right on this forum making up all the problems we are hearing about?

Yes. It is our country...not yours. And that is enough of a reason to dismiss your ultra-left nonsense right there...regardless of what you've been "hearing about".
 
True or false. Do the income tax rates quoted by the IRS include the payroll tax?

2013 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2013

Tell us, boy.

This should be fun :)

Your link doesn't say anything specifically about the rate table including payroll taxes (please point it out if I missed it) but I went to the source and found this:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p505.pdf

Note that the tables are taken from this document starting on page 20. Also at you leisure review page 19 as it is the worksheet that reveals the number to use in column (a). After reviewing 'Worksheet 1-5' (on page 19) please come back and state were specifically payroll taxes are to be used in the calculation...(remember this is the basis of your link)...this SHOULD be fun!

we'll be waiting...:coffeepap
 
NOpe, I assume people who feel they are up to arguing with me are aware of obvious facts.

We know the facts, UP TO and including the fact that the data provided on the chart DOES NOT reflect the total federal income tax collected because the tax rates for the various income levels DO NOT MATCH the actual rates the IRS quotes for the various tax levels in 2009. . .

2009 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2009

You see, the above tax rates are what are actually PAID by people at the various income levels to the federal govt.

as opposed to the chart you provided, which excludes the payroll taxes, i. e. doesn't quote all the tax paid, which explains how the top 25% can, say, have a 14% tax rate--as quoted in your chart--as opposed to the full tax rate (which woulod be around 25-30%)--quoted by the IRS table above.

I actually have the chart that shows how much of the total federal tax is paid by everyone based on the IRS quoted rates, rates that take into account the TOTAL UNREFUNDED FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID (which includes all payroll taxes) BY APRIL 15 by various earning segments.

But you're entertaining us :lol:, so we're going to give you another chance to cite THAT chart, which shouldn't be that hard to find.

Still, this is a significant improvement for you, considering it's the first time we've seen you cite anything at all.
 
We know the facts, UP TO and including the fact that the data provided on the chart DOES NOT reflect the total federal income tax collected because the tax rates for the various income levels DO NOT MATCH the actual rates the IRS quotes for the various tax levels in 2009. . .

2009 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2009

You see, the above tax rates are what are actually PAID by people at the various income levels to the federal govt.

as opposed to the chart you provided, which excludes the payroll taxes, i. e. doesn't quote all the tax paid, which explains how the top 25% can, say, have a 14% tax rate--as quoted in your chart--as opposed to the full tax rate (which woulod be around 25-30%)--quoted by the IRS table above.

I actually have the chart that shows how much of the total federal tax is paid by everyone based on the IRS quoted rates, rates that take into account the TOTAL UNREFUNDED FEDERAL INCOME TAX PAID (which includes all payroll taxes) BY APRIL 15 by various earning segments.

But you're entertaining us :lol:, so we're going to give you another chance to cite THAT chart, which shouldn't be that hard to find.

Still, this is a significant improvement for you, considering it's the first time we've seen you cite anything at all.

your blatantly dishonest posts are entertaining lots of people

payroll taxes are different than the Federal Income Tax

and I cannot help what you HAVE FAILED TO HAVE SEEN
 
Your link doesn't say anything specifically about the rate table including payroll taxes (please point it out if I missed it) but I went to the source and found this:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p505.pdf

Note that the tables are taken from this document starting on page 20. Also at you leisure review page 19 as it is the worksheet that reveals the number to use in column (a). After reviewing 'Worksheet 1-5' (on page 19) please come back and state were specifically payroll taxes are to be used in the calculation...(remember this is the basis of your link)...this SHOULD be fun!

we'll be waiting...:coffeepap

You won't have to wait long, because I already had it, or else I wouldn't have asked td to provide it for us.

But the burden of proof is td's, because he's the one who made the ridiculous claim about the upper 5% paying most of the total federal income taxes collected.

And we're waiting for him to cite it for us. . .

. . .although, this is a historic moment for td--has actually cited something, albeit the wrong document, but something, which is a first for him.
 
Back
Top Bottom