• 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!

Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney

Do you have a higher effective tax rate than mitt romney?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 53.8%
  • No

    Votes: 18 46.2%

  • Total voters
    39
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.
 
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?

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

I was referring to the employer and employee side of FICA only. I include both because the commodity you are offering the employer (skill/time/labor) comes at a higher cost to them, so they offer a lower actual wage (not a perfect rule, but it allows me to use hard numbers, which I like). I was also not using the current, temporary reduction in FICA.

I agree that supplementation is very important. I just like to point out that the cost of this program is bigger than many realize and I hate that the general fund takes a loan against it when we are talking about people's retirement.
 
Last edited:
I did post a link for that 97% comment a ways back and would be happy to do so again.

Oh I know ... no need to post the link. My point was that Romney pays taxes in the bracket of a lower income American.


Regarding FIT, SIT, and FICA, I did start a thread to discuss the differences, but everyone seems to want to discuss them here. Put without flourish, state is a separate government and FICA is intended to be flat because of the style of ROI.

Yes I know ... the OP was to juxtapose posters federal tax rate compared to Romney and many side discussions occurred. I was only speaking to federal tax rate and FICA and not my state taxes. The glaring point is an american work full time plus earning between 75.000-200,000 a year is paying a far greater percentage of taxes than Romney.

I was speaking of federal taxes and I did include FICA. I mentioned my state and property taxes yet only after the fact and not in comparison to Romney.

I realize you are analytical and logical and the "jealousy" and "envy" and "class war fare" argument is not your premise.

I mention that only because Romney uses that phrase on the trail and I think it is a strawman.
 
I think Fox News and Romney had better come up with something more substantial then people are jealous of the wealthy. It will hold up to their own fringe members or pundits with no one to ask them of critical thought yet in the election they will need some substance.

In his victory speech the night of New Hampshire's primary, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Obama was a "leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy,"

Obama: ‘Nobody envies rich people’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

In his speech Friday, Obama reiterated a core theme from this week's State of the Union address by calling for the end of tax cuts and loopholes benefiting the country's top earners. Obama assured lawmakers the plan would prove popular with voters. Obama continued, "We're going to push hard to make sure someone making over a million dollars a year aren't getting tax breaks and tax subsidies they don't need, not out of envy, but out of a sense of fairness and a sense of mutual responsibility and a sense of commitment for the country's future, and that's what we're fighting for. The American people understand that."
 
Last edited:
Which tax cut was so beneficial to the rich only?

The tax cuts on inheritance, capital gains, and outsourcing jobs.

And why, when taxes were cut, are we not looking at the lack of reduction in spending?

World hegemony is not cheap?



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 never said you were GOP.

I really don't want to treat FICA as FIT here.

No one has ever suggested they are. FICA is however part of the effective federal taxes the working class has to pay.

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.

Me too, but until those funds are locked away from general fund use, we are where we are.

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.

When the funds are locked from general fund use we should have that discussion.

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.

Yes, we have overspent, mostly on excessive military spending and optional wars. It began under the Reagan Administration. The other half of the problem is the 30 years of tax cuts to the rich. The only way to fix 30 years of spending too much and taxing the rich too little is to do the reverse.


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.

I don't think the working class spends a lot of time worrying how the rich spend the money that they themselves no longer have.

They might understand that the government stole their money on the premise of covering their retirement and then spent it poorly instead.

And that helps Mitt Romney how? He proposes increasing military spending.


They might not want their employer to lose incentive to do business in the US.

50% of the country has an average income of $15,800. I think you might be overestimating the glee of the working class with their declining status.
 
Oh I know ... no need to post the link. My point was that Romney pays taxes in the bracket of a lower income American.




Yes I know ... the OP was to juxtapose posters federal tax rate compared to Romney and many side discussions occurred. I was only speaking to federal tax rate and FICA and not my state taxes. The glaring point is an american work full time plus earning between 75.000-200,000 a year is paying a far greater percentage of taxes than Romney.

I was speaking of federal taxes and I did include FICA. I mentioned my state and property taxes yet only after the fact and not in comparison to Romney.

I realize you are analytical and logical and the "jealousy" and "envy" and "class war fare" argument is not your premise.

I mention that only because Romney uses that phrase on the trail and I think it is a strawman.

Thank you for breaking this down and giving a well-reasoned argument.

I see that you understand the differences I am pointing out between the taxes and that you are referring to the burden as a whole. The reason I have gone into it is that I want to look at where that money goes and how much comes back and such. We have differing POVs here and I don't know that we will come to an agreement, but I appreciate that you at least understand what I am saying.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I'd be fine with delving into the fundamental differences between the taxes some more or discussing solutions, but I can accept just understanding each other and disagreeing.
 
The tax cuts on inheritance, capital gains, and outsourcing jobs.

The death tax is for another thread, but instead of looking at cutting it as a break for the rich, I prefer to think of it as a lessening of a penalty for taking care of the next generation of your family.
It's time to look at capital gains again, I have said that many times, but those cuts did increase revenue at the time.
Help me with your reference to outsourcing incentives, please.

World hegemony is not cheap?
So, my argument is that they did a poor job of handling our money and your counterpoint is that they should be leading the world?

I never said you were GOP.

You stated that the GOP has a policy and then furthered your statement with "You want to treat FICA the same as FIT." If you didn't mean that, that's fine, but that's where it came from.

No one has ever suggested they are. FICA is however part of the effective federal taxes the working class has to pay.

Me too, but until those funds are locked away from general fund use, we are where we are.

When the funds are locked from general fund use we should have that discussion.

My position is that those funds should be locked away and you are saying that we might as well throw it into FIT because the government overspent and use it as another way to tax people more for the general fund.

Yes, we have overspent, mostly on excessive military spending and optional wars. It began under the Reagan Administration. The other half of the problem is the 30 years of tax cuts to the rich. The only way to fix 30 years of spending too much and taxing the rich too little is to do the reverse.

I don't think the working class spends a lot of time worrying how the rich spend the money that they themselves no longer have.

And that helps Mitt Romney how? He proposes increasing military spending.

50% of the country has an average income of $15,800. I think you might be overestimating the glee of the working class with their declining status.

This was my bad. I shouldn't have gone with the derailment to the election. I was more concerned about who actually pays a higher FIT than Romney and why FICA is not FIT and is another failure of the government.
 
the death tax is nothing more than a surcharge on the group that pays the most income taxes and the only reason it remains is because it only hits a couple percent of the population. It is an abomination that should be ended
 
I'm pretty sure I do as well. However, I am absolutely sure that I really don't care whether he does or not. I don't sit around whining that somebody has more money than I do, or is capable of working the system better than I am. I've got more important things to concern myself with on a daily basis, and other issues I consider much more important regarding political candidates.

I don't lose sleep at night over the fact that Romney has a lot more money than I do. However, I don't think he should be allowed to pay a lower tax rate than people who make far less money than he does.
 
the death tax is nothing more than a surcharge on the group that pays the most income taxes and the only reason it remains is because it only hits a couple percent of the population. It is an abomination that should be ended

I agree with you Turtle that the current estate tax law should be abolished and all transfer of income from one person to a different person should simply be handled as an income transfer with the appropriate tax paid upon it.

I suspect that if you had to decide between that and the current estate tax, you would suddenly become the worlds biggest advocate for keeping the current estate tax.
 
I agree with you Turtle that the current estate tax law should be abolished and all transfer of income from one person to a different person should simply be handled as an income transfer with the appropriate tax paid upon it.

I suspect that if you had to decide between that and the current estate tax, you would suddenly become the worlds biggest advocate for keeping the current estate tax.

Given the choice between death tax and paying taxes when I give my son 100 bucks for his birthday... I choose Canada! Now that's saying something!

Mostly because I was faced with the choice, though. As things stand, I will stick it out here.
 
Given the choice between death tax and paying taxes when I give my son 100 bucks for his birthday... I choose Canada! Now that's saying something!

Mostly because I was faced with the choice, though. As things stand, I will stick it out here.

I'd like all those subject to the death tax to unite and wreak financial havoc on those who keep whining for the death tax. right now lots of rich libs parrot the leftwing propaganda because they think they will make more money with the dems in power than they will get to save if a less parasitic party runs things. But hopefully the wealth stealing lower class yappers will convince those rich liberals that the envious hate them as much as the envious hate the prosperous right wingers
 
I wonder how many of the 21 who said yes are actually paying a federal income tax effective rate of 15%.

I bet not many of them
 
I'd like all those subject to the death tax to unite and wreak financial havoc on those who keep whining for the death tax.

And just how would this Caviar Crusade work?
 
caviar makes me heave

That is both unfortunate as well as too much information. I find it to be an acquired taste.

But just how would this army of the trust fund babies work to effect the blackmail they want to exert over the government?
 
That is both unfortunate as well as too much information. I find it to be an acquired taste.

But just how would this army of the trust fund babies work to effect the blackmail they want to exert over the government?

easy. For example, firing those from businesses they own. blackballing such people. refusing to support any non-profit that has tax hikers as employees or officers. not giving any money to any politician who is a class jihadist.

it could be rather punishing on our little che's
 
Back
Top Bottom