• 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!

Did you pay your $12K?

ttwtt78640 said:
Wrong. There is no mandated relationship to the form of taxation (or borrowing) used and the spending that it supports. The "trust me" fund (a pile of IOUs?) was spent on other things. Social security and Medicare currently run in the red - they pay out more than their "dedicated" revenue supplies. How can you not count that?
Click to expand...

Maybe I should expand on my thoughts. I think Fica income and expenses should both be kept separate. But, lawmakers have been too incompetent to do that. If they were competent we could keep them separate.
 
Moderate Right said:
Maybe I should expand on my thoughts. I think Fica income and expenses should both be kept separate. But, lawmakers have been too incompetent to do that. If they were competent we could keep them separate.
Click to expand...

The problem with that idea is while worker/employer FICA tax rates and SS retirement/disability benefit levels are fixed the number (and pay levels) of current workers and the number of SS current beneficiaries are variable. Since SS is a pay as you go system then adjustments (annually?) to SS benefit levels and/or FICA tax rates would be required to make that system remain in balance.

That is why the "trust me" fund was created to "store" any surplus and subsidies from general revenue are used to cover any shortfall. It is simply a method of smoothing out the "bumps" - or variations in FICA revenue and SS expenses.
 
Last edited:
Blackstone said:
This is an excellent way to demonstrate what's wrong with the system.

For starters, the idea that some people pay nothing while others pay $120,000 or $1.2 million is ridiculously unfair to those who acquire wealth in this country. With roughly half of Americans not paying net taxes at all, we have a serious disconnect between those who are supporting the federal government and those who are not. It is manifestly unfair to those of us who are that those who pay nothing receive the benefit of the franchise. Thomas Jefferson's warning about voting yourself funds from the treasury being the road to disaster has certainly been proven true in modern America.

Another enlightening idea here is that roughly a third of that $12,000 are legitimate functions for federal expenditures and that less than 25% of that $12k would be necessary were our debt down to a reasonable level. Imagine a yearly tax bill of just $3,000 or $4,000 instead? Wouldn't you prefer to have that $8-9k back so you can take care of your own health insurance and retirement needs? I sure would!

It's unconscionable how the federal tax system has evolved over the past century into a punitive redistributionist model for the purpose of buying votes from the ignorant and lazy among us. It's theft, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

If it's so unfair, would you switch places with a poor person? You move to the hood; they get your McMansion in the suburbs and your 2.5 cars. They take a cruise every winter; you go into debt to take a one-day visit to Six Flags every other summer. But, you wouldn't have to pay the FIT!

"Fair" is a relative term.
 
Blackstone said:
This is an excellent way to demonstrate what's wrong with the system.

For starters, the idea that some people pay nothing while others pay $120,000 or $1.2 million is ridiculously unfair to those who acquire wealth in this country. With roughly half of Americans not paying net taxes at all, we have a serious disconnect between those who are supporting the federal government and those who are not. It is manifestly unfair to those of us who are that those who pay nothing receive the benefit of the franchise. Thomas Jefferson's warning about voting yourself funds from the treasury being the road to disaster has certainly been proven true in modern America.

Another enlightening idea here is that roughly a third of that $12,000 are legitimate functions for federal expenditures and that less than 25% of that $12k would be necessary were our debt down to a reasonable level. Imagine a yearly tax bill of just $3,000 or $4,000 instead? Wouldn't you prefer to have that $8-9k back so you can take care of your own health insurance and retirement needs? I sure would!

It's unconscionable how the federal tax system has evolved over the past century into a punitive redistributionist model for the purpose of buying votes from the ignorant and lazy among us. It's theft, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

I have heard, seen, and voiced many methods of discussion on federal finances and it seems that they all end up in partisan discussions about taxation. I came up with the $12K questions to try and break the mold. I was trying to come up with a way to demonstrate that we, as a nation, do not have a revenue problem. What is a tax, what is not a tax, what is revenue, what is debt. These are all side issues that will never address the main issue. We have a spending problem as a nation - we spend too much money. It really is that simple.

Did you pay your $12K? That would really be your fair share. If you do nothing, it will go up, guaranteed.
 
Nuber said:
I have heard, seen, and voiced many methods of discussion on federal finances and it seems that they all end up in partisan discussions about taxation. I came up with the $12K questions to try and break the mold. I was trying to come up with a way to demonstrate that we, as a nation, do not have a revenue problem. What is a tax, what is not a tax, what is revenue, what is debt. These are all side issues that will never address the main issue. We have a spending problem as a nation - we spend too much money. It really is that simple.

Did you pay your $12K? That would really be your fair share. If you do nothing, it will go up, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

In 2017, $12K is only enough to cover the cost of all federal expenditures on an inflation adjusted (2009) per capita basis.

fredgraph.png


The role of government has been following this trajectory for the entire time series.

Now... for the sake of completeness, it is necessary to include state and local expenses:

fredgraph.png


The trends are clearly similar, but it is difficult to isolate the differences in growth between federal and state/local. To correct for this discrepancy, i've included state + local per capita expenses in both nominal and real terms:

fredgraph.png


Are you equally concerned with the growth in state and local government?
 
Last edited:
Are you equally concerned with the growth in state and local government?

Yes. Local jurisdictions all have their own issues that make generic discussions more difficult.
 
austrianecon said:
Actually it would be correct. I clearly defined it as INCOME TAX.. i.e. what payment is due every year by April 16th. Having taxable income doesn't actually mean you pay taxes either. You have such things as deductibles as well. If you read the charts in that article you will find that the lower 40% of American earners actually pay negative taxes, i.e. get a transfer of wealth back to them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd classify a $1500 tax return check as "wealth".
 
Nuber said:
I have heard, seen, and voiced many methods of discussion on federal finances and it seems that they all end up in partisan discussions about taxation.
Click to expand...

A lot of these threads devolve into screaming matches of.. Laffer v. Keynes.. Obama v. Bush.. Reagan v. Clinton.. Really do. They rarely produce groundbreaking results. C'est la vie. During the apocalypse there will be 2 guys in a bar someone arguing about whether or not you should keep more of your money.

I came up with the $12K questions to try and break the mold. I was trying to come up with a way to demonstrate that we, as a nation, do not have a revenue problem. What is a tax, what is not a tax, what is revenue, what is debt. These are all side issues that will never address the main issue.
Click to expand...

We've been averaging about 1.6% GDP growth in the last 20 years. We haven't been adding enough jobs, or filling the jobs that require higher education. If you want to try to fix the budget, you have to reorient policy decisions to help the middle class. As well as provide the tools people need to reach the middle class. Millenials are in a ****ty position right now. Many will do worse than their parents.

We have a spending problem as a nation - we spend too much money. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

I can't support politics that advocate austerity. Austerity will hemmorage your economy. I'm for trimming fat. But, I am absolutely under no circumstances for cutting entitlements, or making many non-defense discretionary cuts.

Did you pay your $12K? That would really be your fair share. If you do nothing, it will go up, guaranteed.
Click to expand...

I made <$30,000 last year, working 3 jobs. I deducted tuition.. and got a $2,000 refund. But, I believe the IRS collected at least 1/3 of my income. Which seems fair. But, I implore the government to make smart policy decisions. Do not throw my money into the furnace at the DoD.
 
Winston said:
A lot of these threads devolve into screaming matches of.. Laffer v. Keynes.. Obama v. Bush.. Reagan v. Clinton.. Really do. They rarely produce groundbreaking results. C'est la vie. During the apocalypse there will be 2 guys in a bar someone arguing about whether or not you should keep more of your money.



We've been averaging about 1.6% GDP growth in the last 20 years. We haven't been adding enough jobs, or filling the jobs that require higher education. If you want to try to fix the budget, you have to reorient policy decisions to help the middle class. As well as provide the tools people need to reach the middle class. Millenials are in a ****ty position right now. Many will do worse than their parents.



I can't support politics that advocate austerity. Austerity will hemmorage your economy. I'm for trimming fat. But, I am absolutely under no circumstances for cutting entitlements, or making many non-defense discretionary cuts.



I made <$30,000 last year, working 3 jobs. I deducted tuition.. and got a $2,000 refund. But, I believe the IRS collected at least 1/3 of my income. Which seems fair. But, I implore the government to make smart policy decisions. Do not throw my money into the furnace at the DoD.
Click to expand...

Most of your money is getting thrown into entitlements.
 
Nuber said:
Please note all numbers are rounded for ease of discussion.

2016 Federal expenditures were about $4 trillion dollars.

2016 estimates for USA population are 325 million people.

In order to be fair, everyone in the US should have paid the feds about $12K in 2016.

Did you pay your $12K?
Click to expand...

Yes, more than that. And whats worse is I paid thousands more to state and local govts. 40% of my earnings probably went to various govts.
 
Winston said:
I made <$30,000 last year, working 3 jobs. I deducted tuition.. and got a $2,000 refund. But, I believe the IRS collected at least 1/3 of my income. Which seems fair. But, I implore the government to make smart policy decisions. Do not throw my money into the furnace at the DoD.
Click to expand...

What else would you cut?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom