• 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!

Über Rich Renouncing U.S Citizenship as IRS Cracks Down on Tax Evaders [W:209]

Cardinal Fang said:
Pointless. In faithful right-wing knee-jerk fashion, you offered up the right-of-contract as some sort of sacred icon or talisman needing only to be waved to have its effect. As any legal novice would have, you then failed to notice any connection at all between that claim and the disgraced Lochner Era that was in quite significant part based upon it. Everything you've posted since then has been the simple gibberish of a failed cover-up.
Click to expand...

More of the idiocy that the poor and middle class are not smart enough to contract properly and the enlightened elite must dictate the terms of the contract for them lest they be taken advantage of. Everything you have posted (I find it hilarious how long it takes you to respond to direct posts towards your psychobabble BTW) demonstrates a sort of welfare socialist noblesse oblige attitude that you are the beneficent savior of those too stupid not to understand the big bad semi capitalist world we live in

YOur silly generalizations of the rich are either a sickening bit of class envy or some even more disturbing bit of self loathing and self flagellation

"disagraced Lochner era" means the FDR statist jurisprudence rejected line of cases that was seen as not statist enough
 
haymarket said:
You are confusing a private IRA for your own individual retirement with Social Security which is a national program which has both an individual component and a societal component.

Silly rants!?!?!?!?!? FICA is indeed a tax. That is simple reality. To deny that reality would indeed be the definition of the word SILLY.

You have been educated on this before. Perhaps you have forgotten?

FICA & SECA Tax Rates



Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax ( /ˈfaɪkə/) is a United States payroll (or employment) tax[1] imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare[2] —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.
Click to expand...

more of the "the rich have more-we need to loot them more" nonsense. Why don't you read the legislative history"

I find it interesting you don't deal with the massive tax hikes you want to impose on the people who already pay massive tax amounts

its time for the rest of the country to start paying their fair share
 
TurtleDude said:
More of the idiocy that the poor and middle class are not smart enough to contract properly and the enlightened elite must dictate the terms of the contract for them lest they be taken advantage of. Everything you have posted (I find it hilarious how long it takes you to respond to direct posts towards your psychobabble BTW) demonstrates a sort of welfare socialist noblesse oblige attitude that you are the beneficent savior of those too stupid not to understand the big bad semi capitalist world we live in

YOur silly generalizations of the rich are either a sickening bit of class envy or some even more disturbing bit of self loathing and self flagellation
Click to expand...

It is ironic that some on the far right scream, whine and cry when the subject of RACE is introduced into a topic and we hear endless about "playing the race card". But in post after post, in thread after thread, rather than intelligently discuss the merits of national tax policy, the warriors of the right have a whole deck of nothing but ENVY CARDS which they play when all else fails them.
 
TurtleDude said:
more of the "the rich have more-we need to loot them more" nonsense. Why don't you read the legislative history"
Click to expand...

Do feel free to present it from the actual historical record. All we see from you is the usual pompous pontifications that are suppose to substitute for actual historical evidence.
 
haymarket said:
It is ironic that some on the far right scream, whine and cry when the subject of RACE is introduced into a topic and we hear endless about "playing the race card". But in post after post, in thread after thread, rather than intelligently discuss the merits of national tax policy, the warriors of the right have a whole deck of nothing but ENVY CARDS which they play when all else fails them.
Click to expand...

your constant mantra is that the rich should be taxed more because you pretend that government needs more money and yes you are well known for claiming conservatives are racists
 
haymarket said:
Do feel free to present it from the actual historical record. All we see from you is the usual pompous pontifications that are suppose to substitute for actual historical evidence.
Click to expand...

Your historical evidence is that the masses want more money from the wealthy and your masters win elections by pandering to that greed
 
haymarket said:
Do feel free to present it from the actual historical record. All we see from you is the usual pompous pontifications that are suppose to substitute for actual historical evidence.
Click to expand...
you want him to present actual historical records? yeah, ok, good luck with that. lol
 
TurtleDude said:
review the legislative history behind it. The supporters were very careful to not call it a tax...
Click to expand...
LOL! Looks like they missed this part from Title VIII of the act as passed...

In addition to other taxes, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 811) received by him after December 31, 1936, with respect to employment (as defined in section 811) after such date..,

The name of Title VIII of course is TAXES WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYMENT.

TurtleDude said:
...nor was it intended to be used for general revenue purposes.
Click to expand...
Payroll taxes aren't and never have been used for general revenue purposes. Of course, since the 1983 revisions, sizable surpluses have been building in the SS Trust Fund so as to serve as a cushion protecting present-day taxpayers as baby-boomer retirement benefits start to come due. To that end, the surpluses have been invested in US Treasury securities. Between the time of issuance and maturity of those securities, the cash does not belong to SS, but to Treasury. SS holds the note. That's the essense of investing, you know.

TurtleDude said:
Haymarket thinks that every bit of money taken by the government ought to be progressive. HE isn't content to have a highly progressive income tax. There is no reason why people who already pay most of the FIT should have to pay most of the FICA as well
Click to expand...
Math homework: Who pays more FICA -- a guy making $30K per year or a guy making $110K per year?

Meanwhile, the complaint I hear is that the wealthy simply escape taxation entirely on wage income above the cap. Those most able to pay aren't asked to pay at all on significant portions of their incomes. Kind of weird, wouldn't you say? We did away with the cap on Medicare taxes. We've added the 3.8% Mediacre assessment against capital gains and other investment income. About time we take some similar steps with regard to Social Security, I'm sure you'll agree.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
could you set aside your silly class envy for once and actually deal with reality? The rich already pay 40% of the income tax, all of the estate tax and now the parasites think they should pay most of the FICA tax as well-ask Haymarket, he thinks this FICA should apply to investment as well as earned income as well which would result in huge tax hikes on the people who already pay 40% of the income tax
Click to expand...
The total tax burden on the top 1% is about 30%. The total tax burden on the bottom 20% is only about 16%. The average income of the top 1% is about 100 times the average income of the bottom 20%. In other words, in the top 1% your income is $100, your taxes are $30, and you have $70 left to live on. In the bottom 20%, your income is $1, you pay taxes of 16 cents, and you have 84 cents left to live on. It's the difference between $70 and 84 cents that pisses people off. This has nothing to do with your fabricated and phony "class envy". It has to do with defense by some of the indefensible.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
Your historical evidence is that the masses want more money from the wealthy and your masters win elections by pandering to that greed
Click to expand...

You utterly have FAILED to present anything other than your own opinion that FICA is not a tax.

Perhaps you are familiar with Supreme Court rulings on the subject?

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers
Click to expand...

Now explain to us again how FICA is not a tax?
 
randel said:
you want him to present actual historical records? yeah, ok, good luck with that. lol
Click to expand...

Yeah - its a complete waste of both time and bandwidth to ask Turtle to present any historical documentation for his pontifications. But it still must be done as a step in honest debate. At least for some of us. :):peace
 
These people are a disease and should be executed for treason.
 
TurtleDude said:
Your idiotic generalizations that the rich are rapiing people pretty much sum up the essence of your attitude.
Click to expand...
Pretty close. There's just something about stealing from the poor to give to the rich that I don't like. Then there's all the lying about it. I don't like that very much either.

TurtleDude said:
And I tire of your sanctimonious attitude.
Click to expand...
No, you tire of seeing your phony claims held up as those of a right-wing stooge. There is nothing falsely pious about engaging in their total destruction. It is all perfectly straight-forward and perfectly straight-away.

TurtleDude said:
Yes I saw your claim that you are some big washington left wing think tank economist...
Click to expand...
I doubt it, since I have not claimed that. Just another example of your claiming evidence where none in fact exists.

TurtleDude said:
..."nearing the end of your career" who has "been paid to give economic advice" etc. Its all crap...
Click to expand...
No, both of those are true. And I've been paid rather handsomely, I might add. This has all actually worked out quite lucratively for me.

TurtleDude said:
...and your arrogance towards other posters contained in your posts is clearly signs of something other than actually knowing what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
No, yet again. It is all very much a sign of my knowing quite well what I am talking about. Across a broad range of relevant topics that some others have minimal to no recognizable capacity in. Right down in fact to where I point out that you used the word "arrogance" as both singular and plural in the sentence above. People who are trained in the language (lawyers, for example) don't make simple mistakes such as that.

TurtleDude said:
You can rant all you want that the rich are "Stealing" from society. I think most of us see what the real issue is
Click to expand...
The real issue is that you have violated the old maxim that if you want to be the big fish in a small pond, you first have to find a small pond.
 
TurtleDude said:
More of the idiocy that the poor and middle class are not smart enough to contract properly and the enlightened elite must dictate the terms of the contract for them lest they be taken advantage of.
Click to expand...
LOL! Smart doesn't have anything to do with it in a world where people believe that it is the God-given right of shareholders to concentrate their power by appointing a small handful of highly-trained professionals to represent their interests, but it is the damnable work of Satan if workers should seek to do exactly the same thing. If you knew anything about labor-management relations that you didn't learn from FOX News, you'd have realized long ago that level playing fields and a balance of economic power are what lead to long-term peace and prosperity for all.

TurtleDude said:
Everything you have posted demonstrates a sort of welfare socialist noblesse oblige attitude that you are the beneficent savior of those too stupid not to understand the big bad semi capitalist world we live in
Click to expand...
You aren't really one to talk here. From what I see, there are very few aspects of the real world that you actually understand at all.

TurtleDude said:
I find it hilarious how long it takes you to respond to direct posts towards your psychobabble BTW.
Click to expand...
Oh, it could take weeks sometimes. This is a time-filler for me. It isn't the only thing I have to do all day. I'm busier and more productive than some others it seems. Contributing more to society, I guess you could say. As the result, you'll often have to wait your turn.

TurtleDude said:
..."disagraced Lochner era" means the FDR statist jurisprudence rejected line of cases that was seen as not statist enough
Click to expand...
Oh, Lochner is still disgraced, ninety years after the Taft Court began to tear it apart.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
more of the "the rich have more-we need to loot them more" nonsense. Why don't you read the legislative history"
Click to expand...
So, no concession that your earlier claim of supporters of the SS Act having gone to great lengths to conceal its having been funded through taxation has been revealed to be just another completely made-up fable?

TurtleDude said:
I find it interesting you don't deal with the massive tax hikes you want to impose on the people who already pay massive tax amounts
Click to expand...
"Massive" as in turning back the clock to those Abuse the Rich days of Bill Clinton? The increases proposed for the top two brackets are a drop in the bucket. Brain-dead Republicans won't tolerate even that. They'd rather follow Grover Norquist around like some bunch of shi-shi toy dogs in Paris Hilton's entourage.

TurtleDude said:
its time for the rest of the country to start paying their fair share
Click to expand...
The easiest way to get them to pay more taxes is to give them some more money. If you don't give them enough to OWE any taxes, you can't really be surprised when they don't PAY any.
 
haymarket said:
It is ironic that some on the far right scream, whine and cry when the subject of RACE is introduced into a topic and we hear endless about "playing the race card". But in post after post, in thread after thread, rather than intelligently discuss the merits of national tax policy, the warriors of the right have a whole deck of nothing but ENVY CARDS which they play when all else fails them.
Click to expand...
Yup. And of course, all else fails them almost right away.
 
haymarket said:
Yeah - its a complete waste of both time and bandwidth to ask Turtle to present any historical documentation for his pontifications. But it still must be done as a step in honest debate. At least for some of us. :):peace
Click to expand...


you blather on about why FICA should be turned into another soak the rich-income redistributionist bit of nonsense so I referred you to the legislative history which would establish that this ponzi scheme never would have passed if it had been configured as you want it to be
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Pretty close. There's just something about stealing from the poor to give to the rich that I don't like. Then there's all the lying about it. I don't like that very much either.


No, you tire of seeing your phony claims held up as those of a right-wing stooge. There is nothing falsely pious about engaging in their total destruction. It is all perfectly straight-forward and perfectly straight-away.


I doubt it, since I have not claimed that. Just another example of your claiming evidence where none in fact exists.


No, both of those are true. And I've been paid rather handsomely, I might add. This has all actually worked out quite lucratively for me.


No, yet again. It is all very much a sign of my knowing quite well what I am talking about. Across a broad range of relevant topics that some others have minimal to no recognizable capacity in. Right down in fact to where I point out that you used the word "arrogance" as both singular and plural in the sentence above. People who are trained in the language (lawyers, for example) don't make simple mistakes such as that.


The real issue is that you have violated the old maxim that if you want to be the big fish in a small pond, you first have to find a small pond.
Click to expand...

the idiocy in your post is patent. You obviously have no clue what the term stealing means. You pretend that people doing well in the current economic system must be stealing from those who have not the talent, the ambition or the desire to do well themselves. That of course is absolutely stupid. Sure there are some wealthy people who have violated the law and the laws exist to deal with them. When it comes to the law you have proven you have no idea what you are talking about
 
Cardinal Fang said:
So, no concession that your earlier claim of supporters of the SS Act having gone to great lengths to conceal its having been funded through taxation has been revealed to be just another completely made-up fable?


"Massive" as in turning back the clock to those Abuse the Rich days of Bill Clinton? The increases proposed for the top two brackets are a drop in the bucket. Brain-dead Republicans won't tolerate even that. They'd rather follow Grover Norquist around like some bunch of shi-shi toy dogs in Paris Hilton's entourage.


The easiest way to get them to pay more taxes is to give them some more money. If you don't give them enough to OWE any taxes, you can't really be surprised when they don't PAY any.
Click to expand...



In your haste to defend fellow travelers you have failed to even read what I posted. for example, my comment about Haymarket wanting massive tax hikes on those who pay too much already involves his desire to make all income subject to the FICA ponzi scheme forced contributions. You missed that with your braying about clinton tax levels.

And what is even more idiotic is to claim that if we want the indolent middle class to pay more taxes we should GIVE them more money. What that means is we who pay the taxes would still be paying the taxes. Let me guess, you labor under the delusion that taxing the rich more and more will actually cause the middle and lower classes to become

a) more productive
b) less likely to drop out of school or engage in other destructive behavior that imposes costs on us net tax payers
c) become less dependent on government
 
TurtleDude said:
the idiocy in your post is patent. You obviously have no clue what the term stealing means. You pretend that people doing well in the current economic system must be stealing from those who have not the talent, the ambition or the desire to do well themselves. That of course is absolutely stupid. Sure there are some wealthy people who have violated the law and the laws exist to deal with them. When it comes to the law you have proven you have no idea what you are talking about
Click to expand...

When the 'bottom 99%' has their money redistributed in a bailout to the top1% who are responsible for self regulating the economy into global financial collapse I think you can kiss one if anyone ever can bring a case to the supreme court...

They wouldnt call you.

-doink
 
MKULTRABOY said:
When the 'bottom 99%' has their money redistributed in a bailout to the top1% who are responsible for self regulating the economy into global financial collapse I think you can kiss one if anyone ever can bring a case to the supreme court...

They wouldnt call you.

-doink
Click to expand...

1) how many people in the top one percent were actually given money

2) how much money has the top one percent paid in taxes vs the others

3) how many people NOT in the top one percent benefited from the bailout

4) where did the money come from to pay for the bailouts (the top 5% pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 95%)

if you want to tax those who directly benefited from the bailout so be it but its moronic to claim everyone in the top one percent benefited. what I do know is that if the bailout came from tax dollars the top one percent paid almost 40% of those tax dollars, those in the bottom 50% less than 5%
 
TurtleDude said:
you blather on about why FICA should be turned into another soak the rich-income redistributionist bit of nonsense so I referred you to the legislative history which would establish that this ponzi scheme never would have passed if it had been configured as you want it to be
Click to expand...
Maybe you should learn what a Ponzi scheme actually is instead of mindlessly repeating a dull-witted claim you happened to read on NewsMax one day.
 
TurtleDude said:
In your haste to defend fellow travelers...
Click to expand...
So, still no concession that your earlier claim of supporters of the SS Act having gone to great lengths to conceal its having been funded through taxation has been revealed to be just another completely made-up fable?
 
TurtleDude said:
what I do know is that if the bailout came from tax dollars the top one percent paid almost 40% of those tax dollars, those in the bottom 50% less than 5%
Click to expand...
IF the bailout came from tax dollars? Are you admitting here that you don't actually know how the bailouts worked or where the money came from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom