View Poll Results: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney?

Voters
45. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    27 60.00%
  • No

    18 40.00%
Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 233

Thread: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

  1. #171
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    if the Democrats really wanted to increase dependency, they would seek to overturn the 5-year limit on welfare benefits. but they ain't.
    Its been up to the states since 1996:

    "On August 22, 1996, Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which ended the welfare entitlement and replaced it with a new block grant providing $16.5 billion per year to states to assist the needy."

    The new program, called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), differed from its predecessor in a number of important ways, including:

    * Eliminating the Welfare Entitlement: Recipients are no longer guaranteed welfare benefits based on eligibility. The 1996 law also eliminated a child care guarantee for welfare recipients, but provided increased funding ($13.9 billion over six years) for child care through a newly created Child Care and Community Development Block Grant. The 1996 law did not affect Medicaid or food stamp eligibility, though critics contend that links between these programs have resulted in numerous recipients being denied Medicaid and food stamp assistance.
    * Establishing Work Requirements: TANF requires recipients to be working within two years of receiving benefits. This general mandate is reinforced by rules requiring states to reach fixed and rising work participation thresholds. By 2002, 50 percent of families receiving assistance in every state must be engaged in work-related activities.
    * Establishing a Five Year Lifetime Limit on Assistance: To address long-term welfare dependency, TANF placed a five year lifetime limit on assistance, but allowed states to exempt up to 20 percent of such cases for hardship reasons. States are allowed to reduce this lifetime limit below 5 years, and almost half of the states have done so.

    Welfare
    Last edited by Catawba; 01-27-12 at 04:49 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #172
    Professor
    Keridan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Last Seen
    08-19-17 @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,451

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Supposedly being the key word.
    Them using this money in the general fund is not as simple as that. This is not a program that is intended to support general government spending. When the government uses this money, they are not simply taxing it away and spending, they are creating an account payable or new debt here. They still have to pay that money back. This is a huge difference. Even if you give them more, you are just adding more debt, not lowering it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The majority of Americans are for fixing it.
    Good for them. I support fixes that involve the government (mis)managing less of our money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    It goes into the unified budget, just as does the FIT, and it is mandatory tax just as is FIT.
    See above, it's listed on the budget, but it is an account payable, not a cash value.

    I have read these and wouldn't mind discussing them elsewhere. I won't point out the specific items that bother me here for fear of derailing. I will state that I do find them highly misleading, just like I do a lot of the GOP proposals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    And under taxing the rich. No one said FICA is FIT, it is however part of the effective Federal taxes the working class has to pay on their entire income.
    You want to treat FICA as FIT here. You are claiming it goes into the general spending budget without accepting that it only creates a debt to do so. Lowering FICA on anyone only increases the debt incurred. Treating as a general spending fund without a cap or making it progressive is the same as a HUGE increase on the wealthy who already pay a very progressive FIT and telling them that on top of the government spending all the money they put into retirement for themselves, they also have to fund everyone else's retirement because they managed to make money.
    Omniscience just sucks without omnipotence!

  3. #173
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    Family of four, Standard Deduction, my wages tips etc. was a little over $28,000, my federal income tax withholding was $922.85. My "refund" is a little over $6K - giving me, I suppose, a tax rate of roughly

    my Federal Income Tax rate, is, I suppose, -19%, give or take.

  4. #174
    Teacher of All Things


    Josie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    28,358

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Single taxpayers, no dependents, get screwed, however. Their tax rate is 14.58% on that same $60,000.
    That's me.


  5. #175
    Professor
    Keridan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Last Seen
    08-19-17 @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,451

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Family of four, Standard Deduction, my wages tips etc. was a little over $28,000, my federal income tax withholding was $922.85. My "refund" is a little over $6K - giving me, I suppose, a tax rate of roughly

    my Federal Income Tax rate, is, I suppose, -19%, give or take.
    Do you work in food service?
    Omniscience just sucks without omnipotence!

  6. #176
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    Quote Originally Posted by Keridan View Post
    Them using this money in the general fund is not as simple as that. This is not a program that is intended to support general government spending.
    Yet, that is exactly what has been done. Without the ss receipts we would never have able to both reduce the tax rates for the rich and simultaneously spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.

    When the government uses this money, they are not simply taxing it away and spending, they are creating an account payable or new debt here. They still have to pay that money back.
    Not if the GOP gets their way, they want to cut payments to the people that paid those taxes. In short, they are trying to find ways to welch on their debt.

    You want to treat FICA as FIT here.

    Nope, FICA is part of the total tax that the working class have to pay on their total income, in addition to FIT.


    You are claiming it goes into the general spending budget without accepting that it only creates a debt to do so. Lowering FICA on anyone only increases the debt incurred.
    Of course, that is why the cap needs to be raised.

    Treating as a general spending fund without a cap or making it progressive is the same as a HUGE increase on the wealthy who already pay a very progressive FIT and telling them that on top of the government spending all the money they put into retirement for themselves, they also have to fund everyone else's retirement because they managed to make money.

    If the wealthy had been paying taxes that were adequately progressive there would have been no need to spend the SS receipts. This debt allowed the rich to enjoy 30 years of tax breaks, so it is only right that the debt should be repaid by eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.
    They made more money by providing less pay to the workers and moving jobs overseas.

    The working class therefore have no obligation or incentive to vote in November to continue their tax cuts.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #177
    Professor
    Keridan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Last Seen
    08-19-17 @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,451

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Yet, that is exactly what has been done. Without the ss receipts we would never have able to both reduce the tax rates for the rich and simultaneously spend almost as much on the military as the rest of the world combined.
    Which tax cut was so beneficial to the rich only? And why, when taxes were cut, are we not looking at the lack of reduction in spending?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Not if the GOP gets their way, they want to cut payments to the people that paid those taxes. In short, they are trying to find ways to welch on their debt.

    You want to treat FICA as FIT here.


    Nope, FICA is part of the total tax that the working class have to pay on their total income, in addition to FIT
    Well, you make the obvious mistake that I'm GOP, which is just wrong. I just happen to be able to tell the difference in the taxes.

    I really don't want to treat FICA as FIT here. That is my whole point. I don't want to take what was set aside for retirement, claim it was there for the general fund, and use it as a 15.3% (8.4% under current revenue cut) increase in taxes on everyone for the general fund. I want to stop pretending that it's okay for the government to claim they are taking as a retirement and just using it for more debt spending.

    All this stuff about the use of it does not change why the tax is there and why it is supposed to be flat. When you muddle that up, you just tell the government that it's okay that they are spending everyone's retirement, the wealthy will give them money when they retire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Of course, that is why the cap needs to be raised.
    Or they could stop debt spending that is so extreme that they have spent everyone's retirement and now the wealthy are being asked to pay higher tax rates and cover everyone's retirement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    If the wealthy had been paying taxes that were adequately progressive there would have been no need to spend the SS receipts. This debt allowed the rich to enjoy 30 years of tax breaks, so it is only right that the debt should be repaid by eliminating the tax breaks for the rich.
    They made more money by providing less pay to the workers and moving jobs overseas.

    The working class therefore have no obligation or incentive to vote in November to continue their tax cuts.
    It's amazing (and telling) to me that you think the only possible reason debt spending is happening is because the wealthy haven't forked over enough cash. It's amazing that you think the only way they made that money was by shipping jobs overseas. There is no possibility in your mind that it is a spending problem or that they could have gotten wealthy in a legitimate way that helped other Americans.

    The working class has many reasons. They could prefer not to have a nanny state. They might want people to have some freedoms in how they spend their money. They might understand that the government stole their money on the premise of covering their retirement and then spent it poorly instead. They might not want their employer to lose incentive to do business in the US.

    Anyway, I shouldn't get into the drama part of it.

    FICA is still supposed to cover retirement based on what you contributed. That is why it is flat. Changing that is blatant redistribution.
    FIT is still progressive and goes into the general fund directly.
    Omniscience just sucks without omnipotence!

  8. #178
    Educator snilloctjc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    El Paso, TX USA
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    648

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    1. Social Security is and was always intended as a supplement to your own retirement income. It was never designed to be the sole source of one's retirement.

    2. If I am not mistaken, it was LBJ who first tapped the social security funds for general spending as a means of financing the continuing Viet Nam War when Congress began limiting funds.
    Silent sobs
    Invisible tears
    Life enveloped
    in unspoken fears.

  9. #179
    Professor
    Keridan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Last Seen
    08-19-17 @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,451

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    Quote Originally Posted by snilloctjc View Post
    1. Social Security is and was always intended as a supplement to your own retirement income. It was never designed to be the sole source of one's retirement.

    2. If I am not mistaken, it was LBJ who first tapped the social security funds for general spending as a means of financing the continuing Viet Nam War when Congress began limiting funds.
    On #2, I think you are right, but I'm not sure of the point you are making.

    On #1, they take 15.3% of your income! I don't know about you, but that makes it hard for me to put much more into retirement most years.
    Omniscience just sucks without omnipotence!

  10. #180
    Educator snilloctjc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    El Paso, TX USA
    Last Seen
    05-04-15 @ 08:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    648

    Re: Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

    Quote Originally Posted by Keridan View Post
    On #2, I think you are right, but I'm not sure of the point you are making.

    On #1, they take 15.3% of your income! I don't know about you, but that makes it hard for me to put much more into retirement most years.
    I assume you are talking about income taxes = 15.3% of your income or are you including FICA? In either case depending on how old you are, and who you work for there is still ways to save. If you are young time is on your side. If you work for a firm with a matching dollar 401K or like plan and are not contributing then you are giving up the 100% return any matched dollar earns right out of the gate.
    Silent sobs
    Invisible tears
    Life enveloped
    in unspoken fears.

Page 18 of 24 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •