Eliminate Payroll Taxes and Flat Tax Everything Sold

I'm Supposn · Dec 29, 2019

Conservative said:
Sorry, but with all due respect you are absolutely wrong! Borrowing from the social security trust fund is exactly what LBJ did and that money went into the federal budget and was spent because more money was coming in than going out! Check your history and stop letting the laughed make a fool out of you. ...

Nuber & Conservative, LBJ DID NOT comingle Social Security funds with other government accounts and further undermine the financial integrity of Social Security’s funding. That’s both in fact and in spirit a falsehood that conservatives wish to propagate in order to demean the Social Security Administration’s reputation of financial integrity.

When Social Security retirement was enacted, we were still within the depression which was announced by the 1929 stock market crash. The excesses of the unregulated stock and bond markets drove the United states and then afterward the remainder of the world’s financial communities into economic hell.
Funding the then currently elderly could only be accomplished with the then currently collected FICA taxes. It also enabled removing elderly job seekers from the labor markets and making any job openings more available to younger workers. What conservatives’ fault as a “Ponzi scheme”, was then the logical and feasible manner by which to immediately establish and jump start the Social Security retirement program. It was then a reasonable and correct decision.

An extreme minority of all credible economists have suggested that we should now make the financial sacrifices necessary to pay beneficiaries from their own generations’ tax contributions.
It is a minority opinion even among credible conservative economists. Much of that’s attributable to conservatives motivation for undermining and terminating our federal Social Security retirement system.

Respectfully, Supposn

Conservative · Dec 29, 2019

I'm Supposn said:
Nuber & Conservative, LBJ DID NOT comingle Social Security funds with other government accounts and further undermine the financial integrity of Social Security’s funding. That’s both in fact and in spirit a falsehood that conservatives wish to propagate in order to demean the Social Security Administration’s reputation of financial integrity.

When Social Security retirement was enacted, we were still within the depression which was announced by the 1929 stock market crash. The excesses of the unregulated stock and bond markets drove the United states and then afterward the remainder of the world’s financial communities into economic hell.
Funding the then currently elderly could only be accomplished with the then currently collected FICA taxes. It also enabled removing elderly job seekers from the labor markets and making any job openings more available to younger workers. What conservatives’ fault as a “Ponzi scheme”, was then the logical and feasible manner by which to immediately establish and jump start the Social Security retirement program. It was then a reasonable and correct decision.

An extreme minority of all credible economists have suggested that we should now make the financial sacrifices necessary to pay beneficiaries from their own generations’ tax contributions.
It is a minority opinion even among credible conservative economists. Much of that’s attributable to conservatives motivation for undermining and terminating our federal Social Security retirement system.

Respectfully, Supposn

Comingle is your term, his was BORROW and there is absolutely no difference!! This is a massive Ponzi Scheme because of that procedure as the money was NEVER PAID BACK. Did those economists suggest we use FIT, CIT, and Excise taxes to pay those funds back and why would you support that? Why a sales tax? Address the SS and Medicare taxes with FICA

Nuber · Dec 30, 2019

I'm Supposn said:
Nuber & Conservative, LBJ DID NOT comingle Social Security funds with other government accounts and further undermine the financial integrity of Social Security’s funding. That’s both in fact and in spirit a falsehood that conservatives wish to propagate in order to demean the Social Security Administration’s reputation of financial integrity.

When Social Security retirement was enacted, we were still within the depression which was announced by the 1929 stock market crash. The excesses of the unregulated stock and bond markets drove the United states and then afterward the remainder of the world’s financial communities into economic hell.
Funding the then currently elderly could only be accomplished with the then currently collected FICA taxes. It also enabled removing elderly job seekers from the labor markets and making any job openings more available to younger workers. What conservatives’ fault as a “Ponzi scheme”, was then the logical and feasible manner by which to immediately establish and jump start the Social Security retirement program. It was then a reasonable and correct decision.

The SS program takes money (FICA taxes) out of paychecks which is deposited into the US Treasury. The US Treasury then sends funds to the SS administration as needed to cover their payments to recipients. Right now there are more FICA taxes than SS expenditures. The excess in the Treasury is spent by the remainder of the federal government and the Federal Government issues notes (special obligation bonds) to the SS Administration to make the accounting clean. Miles of paper (I imagine a lot of it is digital now) saying that the Treasury owes SS money - to be collected later when needed. That is to say once SS income is exceeded by SS payouts. The day that current taxpayers have to foot the expense of all those notes is looming in my lifetime by most accounts.

Remove the fancy names and I pay the money to the Feds, the Feds send some of my money to SS, the feds keep some of my money and spend it on other things, SS pays my mom and dad. I am paying for current retirees, who themselves paid for past retirees, while my children will pay for my retirement. All the while SS is loaning the feds money that I will have to back with future tax increases or service cuts - because the Treasury will have to make up the difference between SS income and SS payouts some day soon.

Ponzi Scheme | Investor.gov

Ask Bernie Madoff if this works in the private sector without repercussions.

These are not right wing talking points. This is just the way it is. And at this point in time I don't really care who started it.

An extreme minority of all credible economists have suggested that we should now make the financial sacrifices necessary to pay beneficiaries from their own generations’ tax contributions.
It is a minority opinion even among credible conservative economists. Much of that’s attributable to conservatives motivation for undermining and terminating our federal Social Security retirement system.

And we find common ground. I agree that those who were made promises should have those promises kept. But I would eliminate SS taxes along with every other federal income tax and replace it with a flat sales tax in order to do so.

I'm Supposn · Dec 30, 2019

Nuber & Conservative, Social Security retirement and Medicare programs are funded in the manner of a “Ponzi scheme” to the extent that the current generation funds the prior generations benefits, and the current generation’s benefits will be funded by the next generation.

But it was not supposed that the United States Congress would default upon our own government’s commitments. Reducing benefits is no less a default if our Treasury Department should default upon the commitments of our nation’s bonds. W hen our congress acts in this fashion, they blemish their own, and our entire nation’s reputation.

Unlike a Ponzi scheme, our government should honor our nations commitments (regardless of any additional costs). If (unlike Ponzi schemes), Social Security and Medicare programs do that, they’re honest and reasonable government programs.
Those additional costs of our Social Security retirement system are due to the U.S. Congress’s inability to adjust the systems funding in compliance to changes of U.S. demographics and our dollar’s value.

Much of those additional costs due to our dollar’s reduced value, are somewhat defrayed by current funding revenue being paid on taxes based upon current payroll amounts.
Respectfully, Supposn

Nuber · Dec 30, 2019

I'm Supposn said:
Nuber & Conservative, Social Security retirement and Medicare programs are funded in the manner of a “Ponzi scheme” to the extent that the current generation funds the prior generations benefits, and the current generation’s benefits will be funded by the next generation.

No, they are funded like a ponzi scheme because it fits the definition of a ponzi scheme. Good for government, bad for everyone else. Moral dilemma anyone?

But it was not supposed that the United States Congress would default upon our own government’s commitments. Reducing benefits is no less a default if our Treasury Department should default upon the commitments of our nation’s bonds. W hen our congress acts in this fashion, they blemish their own, and our entire nation’s reputation.

Common ground again. Yeah, us!

Unlike a Ponzi scheme, our government should honor our nations commitments (regardless of any additional costs). If (unlike Ponzi schemes), Social Security and Medicare programs do that, they’re honest and reasonable government programs.

See, we are right back to that morality thing again. Why are such actions OK for government but not for private enterprise? Madoff intended to pay off his debts as well. Just ask him (or look up his statements about the subject). Best intentions just don't cut it for me.

Those additional costs of our Social Security retirement system are due to the U.S. Congress’s inability to adjust the systems funding in compliance to changes of U.S. demographics and our dollar’s value.

Yes indeed. Another way to say this - federal government allowed more and more people to qualify for the program while allowing fewer and fewer people to fully pay for the program. Equal application of our laws would have prevented this, or at least moved the funding issue further out into the future. Equal percentages for all just keeps on making sense to me.

Much of those additional costs due to our dollar’s reduced value, are somewhat defrayed by current funding revenue being paid on taxes based upon current payroll amounts.

My education calls this concept the "future value of a present dollar". This point, although valid, is not much of a discussion for me as it is always true, whether it is discussed or not. Our elected officials, who for a variety or reasons play the shell game with this concept, largely loose the pea because they are almost all lawyers - few of them are economists.

Yet another reason why I want fixed percentage government revenue. Take the shells away so it is much harder to loose the pea. The current system (possibly more than the people) is a part of the problem. I want to change the system, not go with feathering the edges of the status quo.

I'm Supposn · Dec 30, 2019

Nuber said:
I oppose any favorable treatment of any citizen or citizen group by the federal government. I do not believe this is the role of the federal government. Currently federal tax code favors the lower half of people represented by tax returns - they pay almost nothing under those laws and regulations.

I agree that they do pay other taxes, but everyone pays those other taxes. The other taxes are more fair, the federal income tax is not fair.

I want fairness and equality - equal application of our laws. I suggest that a flat tax based on consumption is the answer. There are a lot of other benefits along the way.

P.S. - I will take the Fair Tax, although it is not perfect in my view.

Nuber, if income tax is to be more equitable, there will be far fewer or no personal, (as opposed to commercial) deductions from taxable incomes. There’d be a standard finite amount of deduction annually cost-of-living adjusted, and that standard would be per capita for each income taxpayer and their dependents.

IRS’s income tax averaging was eliminated for all but those deriving income from agricultural and fishing, would be restored and expanded. It’s a more equitable concept for all those who experience erratic annual incomes. The deep long-term capital gains reductions from regular tax rates are government’s clumsy intervention within commercial markets and decisions.

Excerpted from the thread, "IRS’s income averaging provisions are a superior tax policy":

I'm Supposn said:
… Reduced tax rates for long term capital gains, (i.e. LTCG) are unjustified.
I’m a proponent for not limiting the income sources eligible for income averaging tax treatment and eliminating the LTCGs’ extreme tax rate reductions. …

The working poor do not pay income taxes and considering the purchasing power of their wages, the taxes imbedded within their purchases are an unreasonably high portions of their entire meager incomes.
Respectfully, Supposn

Nuber · Dec 31, 2019

I'm Supposn said:
Nuber, if income tax is to be more equitable, there will be far fewer or no personal, (as opposed to commercial) deductions from taxable incomes.

Flat tax consumption without prejudice. Same percentage for everyone. Same percentage for everything. I am saying deductions are a method for politicians to game the system, to pit one income class against another in eternal conflict. Be done with it and pull the rug out from under the politicians. No income tax - no deductions. This is a good thing. Can you imagine how much time and money you are going to spend in a month or two providing the IRS with your tax return? Such things will disappear. Doing away with tax returns should be a winning argument all by itself for my point of view.

There’d be a standard finite amount of deduction annually cost-of-living adjusted, and that standard would be per capita for each income taxpayer and their dependents.

I know the fair tax concept does this, I don't personally think it to be mandatory for functionality, but if I have to accept this to get a fair tax (better than the current system), so be it.

IRS’s income tax averaging was eliminated for all but those deriving income from agricultural and fishing, would be restored and expanded. It’s a more equitable concept for all those who experience erratic annual incomes. The deep long-term capital gains reductions from regular tax rates are government’s clumsy intervention within commercial markets and decisions.

A hot mess to be sure. Do away with it. Flat tax everything sold. Simple.

Excerpted from the thread, "IRS’s income averaging provisions are a superior tax policy":
The working poor do not pay income taxes and considering the purchasing power of their wages, the taxes imbedded within their purchases are an unreasonably high portions of their entire meager incomes.

Meager or excessive, adequate or moderate, I don't care about the adjective.

Flat tax consumption - Fair. Unbiased. No loopholes. No more class warfare. Equal application of our laws. No more tax returns. Larger paychecks. Everyone pays. Rich pay more. Thousands of local governments do it with a proven track record. Do it now. Do it yesterday.

At this point I feel like we have put the truck into reverse, run over the topic backwards, then spun out over the topic all over again. Enjoy your new years, and have the last word if you want it.

I'm Supposn · Dec 31, 2019

Nuber said:
Flat tax consumption without prejudice. Same percentage for everyone. Same percentage for everything. I am saying deductions are a method for politicians to game the system, to pit one income class against another in eternal conflict. Be done with it and pull the rug out from under the politicians. No income tax - no deductions. This is a good thing. Can you imagine how much time and money you are going to spend in a month or two providing the IRS with your tax return? Such things will disappear. Doing away with tax returns should be a winning argument all by itself for my point of view. …

Nuber, “Fair Tax” proponents advocate an advance rebate, or "prebate", of tax on purchases up to the poverty level. Otherwise the poor, which includes those in poverty and all other low-income segments of our population would be impacted by a very regressive tax.
Excerpted from the discussion thread “Would voters be willing to fund Medicare4All with a federal sales tax?”:

I'm Supposn said:
Jaeger19, …In my opinion, what's problematic are:
(1) I doubt the U.S. Congress would enact and in the future retain sufficient Pretax-refunds to compensate the poor that currently are not subject to income taxes.
(2) I don't believe we can or should attempt to effectively enforce a federal sales tax rate to sufficiently replace all federal revenues due to taxes based upon net incomes, wages, and payrolls, or even upon only individuals' net incomes and wages.
(3) Most Fair-tax proponents insist on the transformation be accomplished in a single step.
In my opinion, #3 should not be considered.

If the federal taxes are incrementally and simultaneously transformed, after one of the incremental steps, sales tax will approach an unacceptable rate and further increases will not be enacted.
If I'm incorrect, all federal taxes upon individuals' net incomes and wages would be eliminated. Conceivably, in that case, all enterprises' taxes upon net incomes and payrolls could also be eliminated. …

I hope 2020 will be good to you, your family, our nation and our world, Respectfully, Supposn