• 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!

How much will GOP plan to cut Social Security spending cut the deficit?

Visbek said:
I can't believe that nonsense still persists.

- 22% are seniors
- 15% don't pay taxes due to EITC and Child Tax Credit
- 10% knock their federal taxes to zero due to various other tax credits, including 7000 millionaire+ tax filers who escaped all income taxes
- of the 47%, two thirds pay payroll taxes
- almost all of the 10 states with the highest percentages of non-payers are "Red" states -- NM, AK, TX, MS, LA, AL, FL, GA, SC, ID

As to the idea of socking the poor and middle class for more taxes? Yeah, THAT will be real popular! But let's see how that might work.

There are 126 million households, so that's 25 million households per quintile. (2.6 people per household btw.)

4th quintile has an average income of $47,000 and pays $4000 in federal taxes, that's 8.5%. Let's increase that by 50%, which yields an extra $2000 per household. That's $150 billion in revenues. Mazel tov!

1st quintile has an average income of $265,000 and pays 70,000 in taxes (26%). Increasing that by $2000 per HH requires only a 3% increase in their tax rate.

How big of an impact is a $2000/yr tax bill for these different households? One way to measure it is with savings rate. The 1st quintile saves half its income; the 4th saves almost nothing. Needless to say, that's going to hurt the low earners much, much more than the high earners.

moneygame-cotd-030113.jpg


So even before we get into questions of income inequality, it doesn't make sense to get more federal taxes out of lower income households.
Click to expand...

The 10% you listed can pay more. Of course they won't like it. Who likes paying taxes? Who said anything that these 10% had to pay $2,000 per year? Most of the things you listed are biased partisan talking points.
 
iguanaman said:
Those people spend all they earn in the economy so taking even $100 more from them will reduce spending (and GDP) by that $100. It is a zero sum game. If you understand and what that means. That is why we have progressive taxes, so our economy can grow more. Making taxes less progressive will slow growth and could easily cause a recession. Taxing money not spent at a higher rate is essential for maximizing growth of the economy and minimizing income disparity which is at all time high already. One thing for sure you Republicans sure know how to wreck an economy. Without you guys we wouldn't even have any recessions I bet. Well that is for next time. Now we will most likely get to ride out another of the GOP's famous specialty.. a negative growth GDP. The 1% love it and so do the corporations when it drives down wages again.
Click to expand...

That's not really true. Show me the stats that all of these 47% spend all of their money. Besides, just because someone spends all of their money when they don't need to spend all of their money doesn't mean that they can't pay uncle sam $100. So, they buy less lottery tickets, alcohol, and cigarettes. Many of these people are poor because the don't spend all of their money, they blow all of their money.
 
Incisor said:
They may pay a greater share of the burden, but what they pay individually is about half as much as they used to pay. That's the point.
Click to expand...

They're paying a greater share. What more do you want? Besides, you don't give a crap about the deficit.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's not really true. Show me the stats that all of these 47% spend all of their money. Besides, just because someone spends all of their money when they don't need to spend all of their money doesn't mean that they can't pay uncle sam $100. So, they buy less lottery tickets, alcohol, and cigarettes. Many of these people are poor because the don't spend all of their money, they blow all of their money.
Click to expand...
It IS "Really true", just not "absolutely true", which is why you strawman-ed him with Overly burdensome superlatives "ALL the 47%"/"ALL of their money".

The bottom half (making up most of the 47%) obviously spend a Much Higher percent of their money to live. 100%, even more in some cases. You want their rent? Prescription money?

That $100 comes right out of Walmart/the economy. Whereas if you took an extra $10,000 from the can't-even-find-it top .1% it would have virtually No effect on their spending. (just less to put in .1% T-bills).
Broadening the base" is not only short hand for Regressive taxes, but the formula for recession.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
It IS "Really true", just not "absolutely true", which is why you strawman-ed him with Overly burdensome superlatives "ALL the 47%"/"ALL of their money".

The bottom half (making up most of the 47%) obviously spend a Much Higher percent of their money to live. 100%, even more in some cases. You want their rent? Prescription money?

That $100 comes right out of Walmart/the economy. Whereas if you took an extra $10,000 from the can't-even-find-it top .1% it would have virtually No effect on their spending. (just less to put in .1% T-bills).
Broadening the base" is not only short hand for Regressive taxes, but the formula for recession.
Click to expand...

You assume that all of these 47% are poor and spend all of their money. That is not the case with all of them. You base your judgments solely on jealousy of the rich. But, you should be happy that Trump wants to expand on the 47%.
 
Moderate Right said:
You assume that All of these 47% are poor and spend all of their money. That is not the case with all of them. You base your judgments solely on jealousy of the rich. But, you should be happy that Trump wants to expand on the 47%.
Click to expand...
No, you're Disingenuously (to be kind) using/abusing the SAME strawman again.
NO, I did NOT assume "ALL," I assumed the absolutely logical stand that the lower half make up a much (much, much) larger part of the 47% than the upper half, for obvious reasons.
Which [still] supports the 'broadening the base' being Counterproductive economically.

It's one thing to try that Disingenuous (to be kind) trick once, it's another to try it twice on someone who already called your semantic chicanery.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
No, you're Disingenuously (to be kind) using/abusing the SAME strawman again.
NO, I did NOT assume "ALL," I assumed the absolutely logical stand that the lower half make up a much (much, much) larger part of the 47% than the upper half, for obvious reasons.
Which [still] supports the 'broadening the base' being Counterproductive economically.

It's one thing to try that Disingenuous (to be kind) trick once, it's another to try it twice on someone who already called your semantic chicanery.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that the the ones you claim as not being in the "all" category should be paying some federal income taxes.
 
jonny5 said:
What do you mean give? Its their earnings.
Click to expand...

Not on any tax scale that makes sense. The Govt. is short on revenue, income disparity is at record levels, rates are already very low and the wealthy are swimming in cash. It makes no logical sense to cut the 1% rates even lower, in fact here is good reason to raise their rates. All this shows is who is really running the show. And they have regular guys like you who somehow think it is fine that 62 people own half the wealth in the world. It truly boggles the mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined
 
Moderate Right said:
All I'm saying is that the the ones you claim as not being in the "all" category should be paying some federal income taxes.
Click to expand...

Why? Because inflation is high and we are experiencing runaway GDP growth? That would be the only sound reason to short circuit the economy by taxing away money from those that spend it all in the economy. If you are jealous that so many don't pay income tax, you should be asking for higher wages for the middle class. They would be glad to make enough to pay taxes believe me but instead you want "blood out of stones". Read your bible.
 
fmw said:
Looks like they are getting the shaft since they pay 80% of the taxes.
Click to expand...

Because they make 80% of the money more or less. The top 5% have massed a net wealth of over $45 Trillion after quintupling (that'as 5 times) it in 35 years since 1980 mostly due to low tax rates.. If you call that getting the shaft you are nuts. That $45 Trillion is more money than existed on the planet before 1980.
 
iguanaman said:
Why? Because inflation is high and we are experiencing runaway GDP growth? That would be the only sound reason to short circuit the economy by taxing away money from those that spend it all in the economy. If you are jealous that so many don't pay income tax, you should be asking for higher wages for the middle class. They would be glad to make enough to pay taxes believe me but instead you want "blood out of stones". Read your bible.
Click to expand...

No. Because they should be paying federal income taxes. Are you blind? I was responding to the other post that admitted that SOME of the 47% make enough money to pay taxes. They aren't all stones. That's what you guys don't get. This has nothing to do with the economy. This has to do with the fact that everyone over the poverty level has a moral obligation to help pay for the country's expenses. The hell with the economy. Even you guys admit that the economy has been doing pretty well over the last eight years and then you blast the economy for increasing income inequality. You can't make up your minds. Which way is it? We already have the best economy in the world!
 
independentusa said:
It won't. Social Security is paid out of the Social Security tax and is neutral when it comes to the deficit. In fact, the Social Security system is 2.7 Trillion dollars in the black. That is the amount that both parties have borrowed from the system to balance past budgets. Maybe it is time for them to start paying the money back they borrowed from the system.
Click to expand...

The answer to the question "How much will GOP plan to cut Social Security spending cut the deficit?" is not enough.
 
Moderate Right said:
No. Because they should be paying federal income taxes. Are you blind? I was responding to the other post that admitted that SOME of the 47% make enough money to pay taxes. They aren't all stones. That's what you guys don't get. This has nothing to do with the economy. This has to do with the fact that everyone over the poverty level has a moral obligation to help pay for the country's expenses. The hell with the economy. Even you guys admit that the economy has been doing pretty well over the last eight years and then you blast the economy for increasing income inequality. You can't make up your minds. Which way is it? We already have the best economy in the world!
Click to expand...

Taxing away money that would be spent has everything to do with the economy. It would kill it. What was "moral" about Romney paying a lower tax rate than his secretary? You guys have a funny sense of morals.

Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
 
iguanaman said:
Taxing away money that would be spent has everything to do with the economy. It would kill it. What was "moral" about Romney paying a lower tax rate than his secretary? You guys have a funny sense of morals.

Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012
Click to expand...

Were you talking about Romney or Warren Buffet? In any event, which taxes would the secretary rather pay, her's or her boss's two million dollars? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that she would rather pay her taxes than her boss's two million. But, at least she was doing her moral duty of paying taxes while some of the 47% are slackers who can pay something but don't. This has nothing to do with the economy. It is about everyone having the moral duty and obligation to help pay the country's bills.
 
scatt said:
The answer to the question "How much will GOP plan to cut Social Security spending cut the deficit?" is not enough.
Click to expand...

OK I'll bite. How much is enough in your mind?

They can cut Social Security benefits to zero, and the program will collect $900 billion. That money will simply go to the Trust Fund to buy more debt.
 
The problem is not Social Security anyway. There are tons of different creative ways to continue to finance Social Security without big benefit cuts or big changes to the retirement age.

The real problem is funding Medicare in the future and no one right now has a good solution for that.
 
Chomsky said:
The real question is:

How much will the GOP cut Medicare & Social Security, in order to pay for tax cuts for their fat-cat friends & their corporations and other legal entities?
Click to expand...

I worry about the same thing ----- however, attempting to cut SS would produce such a loud pushback that it would dwarf the women march of recent memory. It would certainly be a major smackdown to the GOP.
 
iguanaman said:
Because they make 80% of the money more or less. The top 5% have massed a net wealth of over $45 Trillion after quintupling (that'as 5 times) it in 35 years since 1980 mostly due to low tax rates.. If you call that getting the shaft you are nuts. That $45 Trillion is more money than existed on the planet before 1980.
Click to expand...

I don't know about other countries but our dollar is worth less than half of what it was worth in 1980. My suggestion is that you figure out how to become a 1% income earner yourself then you can avoid all that envy.
 
Moderate Right said:
This has to do with the fact that everyone over the poverty level has a moral obligation to help pay for the country's expenses.
Click to expand...
This is why your arguments always fail, they are based on someones "morality" code. The adults base their ideas for taxation on economics....and when it comes to FICA, those in poverty who work and those earning less than $118K are paying the full rate, unlike those above that level.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
This is why your arguments always fail, they are based on someones "morality" code. The adults base their ideas for taxation on economics....and when it comes to FICA, those in poverty who work and those earning less than $118K are paying the full rate, unlike those above that level.
Click to expand...

Everyone over the poverty level should pay their fair share of taxes and a fair share of zero only applies to those under the poverty level. Your FICA tax argument is meaningless because those earning more than $118k per year pay less social security taxes but they also collect less social security as a result. For the record though, I agree with removing that cap on FICA taxes and I also favor means testing for Social Security. It's ridiculous that Bill Gates, et al, should get a social security check.
 
Moderate Right said:
fair share
Click to expand...
There you go again, more morality plays.

Everyone who earns a salary under $118K pays their "fair share" of FICA, which is the context.

Beyond this, you and I have already gone over arguments about what level of discretionary benefits lower income earner receive.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
There you go again, more morality plays.

Everyone who earns a salary under $118K pays their "fair share" of FICA, which is the context.

Beyond this, you and I have already gone over arguments about what level of discretionary benefits lower income earner receive.
Click to expand...

Why did we switch to FICA? I was originally talking about federal income taxes, not FICA taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom