Should We Redesign Payroll Taxes?

[Conservative]

well selfishly, which conservatives seem to understand best, my business would be more profitable with a middle class with more disposable income.

i might pay more taxes but taxes are just a cost of doing business. a big tax bill is a good thing. means you are making.money.

taxes are never stealing. somebody has to pay the bills for this great country. obviously those who benefit most should not be adverse to paying their fair share. only the greedy rich want to keep it all.

truth is with a middle class making.more money that tax base will be larger and as revenues rise it could relieve some of that tax burden off the upper earners.

right now we are just kicking the can down the road. adding astronomical amounts to the national debt just to continue to enrich the rich.

just as an afterthought on Trump's tax cut it added less than a $100 a month to the average american's income.

Oh my, never discuss how your tax dollars are spent or how SS and Medicare funds are nothing but IOU's today but keep focusing on raising taxes and never answering the questions posed to you. $100 a month means a lot to some people but you judge everyone else by your own standards.

You want the middle class to make more money, what is stopping them?

Seems you have no problem with the bills our Federal bureaucrats are paying or the votes they are buying or the dollars leaving the state and local governments because of higher federal taxes. Just goes to show how easily it is to influence and indoctrinate some people

 

[rickc]

Oh my, never discuss how your tax dollars are spent or how SS and Medicare funds are nothing but IOU's today but keep focusing on raising taxes and never answering the questions posed to you. $100 a month means a lot to some people but you judge everyone else by your own standards.

You want the middle class to make more money, what is stopping them?

Seems you have no problem with the bills our Federal bureaucrats are paying or the votes they are buying or the dollars leaving the state and local governments because of higher federal taxes. Just goes to show how easily it is to influence and indoctrinate some people

you have never acknowledged anything i have said have you?

i have addressed it all. you just don't accept the message

i don't know why. are you just think skulled or are you paid to redirect and confuse the issues on these forums

you are.like a broken record. you repeat the message over and over and no matter how many people answer you you just deny that they answered and repeat your same old broken rhetoric.

 

[phattonez]

I think we should roll up almost all taxes into the personal income tax with almost all deductions removed. That would make tax day a lot simpler.

I'd prefer going back to a system of tariffs to fund the government. Taxing our own people (especially the non-wealthy laborers) should be done as little as possible.

 

[Neomalthusian]

i think our government should pay it's bills. it will tax a combination of cutting spending and raising taxes. congress doesn't have the guts to do either. i propose a balanced budget admendment to the constitution.

That's not just a political courage issue, it's an issue of the world's foremost economists understanding that monetarily sovereign governments don't have to balance their budgets, and in fact they would strongly advise against the self-imposed requirement for a currency-sovereign government to run balanced budgets.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Again and still no answer to the question raised, how does income equality affect you

There isn't income equality, so there is no effect to describe.

how does increasing taxes on the rich close that income equality?

That doesn't make sense either. Do you mean income inequality?

Taxes don't really do much of anything one way or another to income inequality.

 

[Conservative]

you have never acknowledged anything i have said have you?

i have addressed it all. you just don't accept the message

i don't know why. are you just think skulled or are you paid to redirect and confuse the issues on these forums

you are.like a broken record. you repeat the message over and over and no matter how many people answer you you just deny that they answered and repeat your same old broken rhetoric.

No, you haven't addressed anything I have posted because income equality has absolutely nothing to do with taxes, and the fact remains FIT cuts have led to growing FIT revenue

You are certainly married to this ideology of yours with no understanding of even how to research the data or understand context. You won't answer direct questions and are the true broken record

 

[Conservative]

There isn't income equality, so there is no effect to describe.



That doesn't make sense either. Do you mean income inequality?

Taxes don't really do much of anything one way or another to income inequality.

That isn't my issue, ask the poster, have no idea what he/she is even talking about. Never in my life have I been concerned about income equality or whatever that means because no rich person ever prevented me from joining them. These people seem to want income redistribution as they cannot compete for higher incomes. Never was a problem for me in my 35 years in the private sector

 

[Bullseye]

Taxes don't really do much of anything one way or another to income inequality.

Absolutely true. There's one major factor that drives income inequality - what the employee contributes to the success his employer. That it. Period. IF you have rare skills, experience and education you are worth more to the employer and he will pay accordingly. If your major skill is operating a toilet brush or flipping hamburgers be happy if he offers anything over minimum wage. That's an immutable economic fact, and the reason we see income in the top percentiles growing faster than the bottom. Technologies are becoming more complex and fewer people are available to work on them.

 

[Bullseye]

well selfishly, which conservatives seem to understand best, my business would be more profitable with a middle class with more disposable income.

Mindless slur aside, that's what conservatives are trying to create: middle class with more income. Unlike dems we don't that that can be done by taxing the people creating those jobs.

i might pay more taxes but taxes are just a cost of doing business. a big tax bill is a good thing. means you are making.money.

Dems love that mindset.

taxes are never stealing. somebody has to pay the bills for this great country. obviously those who benefit most should not be adverse to paying their fair share. only the greedy rich want to keep it all.

And the top earners already do pay far more than their "fair share" whatever that means.

truth is with a middle class making.more money that tax base will be larger and as revenues rise it could relieve some of that tax burden off the upper earners.

Dang, you're a closet conservative.

right now we are just kicking the can down the road. adding astronomical amounts to the national debt just to continue to enrich the rich.

Well you're half right - we are spending far too much. As far as benefiting the rich. Mostly BS.

just as an afterthought on Trump's tax cut it added less than a $100 a month to the average american's income.

Have you heard anyone turn it down or give it back? I'd guess the millions getting jobs because of those cuts got more than that.

 

[rickc]

Mindless slur aside, that's what conservatives are trying to create: middle class with more income. Unlike dems we don't that that can be done by taxing the people creating those jobs.

au contraire

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

So then why are their IOU's in Inter Government Holdings since no money was used for anything other than SS and Medicare?

https://moneymorning.com/2017/03/31...ck-of-ious-in-a-west-virginia-filing-cabinet/

you are confusing the funding of SS and Medicare and the use of the money

I would consider the source. It is your choice. You can pick the SSA as fact or MoneyMorning. To me the SSA is fact, and we will have to agree to disagree.

The excess cash (of which there hasn't been any since 2010) is used to buy bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund. The Social Security Trust Fund is classified in the "Inter-Government Holdings", why who knows. By law the money can only be spent on the dedicated entitlement. The fact that it is called "inter-government holdings" changes nothing. That means that the bond is held by another part of the government. In this case, it is held by the SSA on behalf of the Social Security system.

 

[Conservative]

I would consider the source. It is your choice. You can pick the SSA as fact or MoneyMorning. To me the SSA is fact, and we will have to agree to disagree.

The excess cash (of which there hasn't been any since 2010) is used to buy bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund. The Social Security Trust Fund is classified in the "Inter-Government Holdings", why who knows. By law the money can only be spent on the dedicated entitlement. The fact that it is called "inter-government holdings" changes nothing. That means that the bond is held by another part of the government. In this case, it is held by the SSA on behalf of the Social Security system.

You can try to justify IOU's in inter government holdings but I can't

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[rickc]

I would consider the source. It is your choice. You can pick the SSA as fact or MoneyMorning. To me the SSA is fact, and we will have to agree to disagree.

The excess cash (of which there hasn't been any since 2010) is used to buy bonds held by the Social Security Trust Fund. The Social Security Trust Fund is classified in the "Inter-Government Holdings", why who knows. By law the money can only be spent on the dedicated entitlement. The fact that it is called "inter-government holdings" changes nothing. That means that the bond is held by another part of the government. In this case, it is held by the SSA on behalf of the Social Security system.

exactly

and they can ensure the solvency of social security without raising the retirement age many different way. Republicans just refuse to do it because their wealthy donors don't need it and don't want to pay for it. they want it bankrupt where it will be easier to get rid of.

 

[Neomalthusian]

That isn't my issue, ask the poster, have no idea what he/she is even talking about. Never in my life have I been concerned about income equality or whatever that means because no rich person ever prevented me from joining them. These people seem to want income redistribution as they cannot compete for higher incomes. Never was a problem for me in my 35 years in the private sector

Congratulations then.

The really ironic thing about today's group of liberals is that very few of them seem to care at all about the 90 million or so Americans who aren't in the labor force. They don't earn incomes. They don't benefit from minimum wage laws. Or labor unions. They are out of the labor force altogether. If liberals care about the have-nots, why not start with the people who don't even sell any labor, because no one wants to buy it? Instead the rail against the private sector in general as if it were the private sector's inherent responsibility to meet the needs of the needy by paying its lowest wage employees well. It's an incoherent political platform.

The conservative side has no realistic ideas for them either, other than to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, as if 90 million jobs would suddenly be created for them once they demonstrated some effort or willpower. This enormous group of people represent the country's overwhelming glut of potential labor. There isn't going to ever be a 90+% LFPR and near-zero unemployment. We'll just never need anywhere near as much human laborers as there are working-age people. So how miserable should those 90+ million people's lives be?

The pissing and moaning about income inequality is an argument between the haves and the have-mores. The have-nots can go eff themselves, apparently, because no one gives a **** about them.

 

[Conservative]

exactly

and they can ensure the solvency of social security without raising the retirement age many different way. Republicans just refuse to do it because their wealthy donors don't need it and don't want to pay for it. they want it bankrupt where it will be easier to get rid of.

Or we could ensure the solvency by significantly cutting the federal spending and put that money back in the location in which it was taken. IOU's in SS and Medicare were created why??

 

[rickc]

Or we could ensure the solvency by significantly cutting the federal spending and put that money back in the location in which it was taken. IOU's in SS and Medicare were created why??

cutting federal spending. what a great idea. Republicans really tried under Obama without.much success

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...iscal-fights-of-the-obama-administration/amp/

they certainly haven't tried under trump.

what would you propose as a solution?

 

[Conservative]

cutting federal spending. what a great idea. Republicans really tried under Obama without.much success

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...iscal-fights-of-the-obama-administration/amp/

they certainly haven't tried under trump.

what would you propose as a solution?

That's because you have never seen the U.S. Budget and have no idea what you are talking about. You buy what you are told, buy the bottom line and ignore the content. rather sad to see someone so passionate and yet so poorly informed on specific budget issues. I have posted the budget many times, why don't you do some research and find out what Trump has actually done with regards to the budget vs. what he couldn't do?

 

[rickc]

That's because you have never seen the U.S. Budget and have no idea what you are talking about. You buy what you are told, buy the bottom line and ignore the content. rather sad to see someone so passionate and yet so poorly informed on specific budget issues. I have posted the budget many times, why don't you do some research and find out what Trump has actually done with regards to the budget vs. what he couldn't do?

you mean this. of course this is just descretionary spending. the only thing trump can mess with.




has tbat republican congress passed his proposed budget? remember those conservative republicans in congress hold the purse strings.

 

[Conservative]

you mean this. of course this is just descretionary spending. the only thing trump can mess with.

View attachment 67241105


has tbat republican congress passed his proposed budget? remember those conservative republicans in congress hold the purse strings.

Don't see interest expense in your chart, wonder why?

 

[rickc]

Don't see interest expense in your chart, wonder why?

interest on the debt is special. not mandatory, not discretionary, it gets its own line item.

 

[Conservative]

interest on the debt is special. not mandatory, not discretionary, it gets its own line item.

NO IT IS MANDATORY and it is the fourth largest budget item so you ignored it, 500+ billion this year alone all on the debt Trump inherited, explain it and how Trump is responsible?

 

[rickc]

NO IT IS MANDATORY and it is the fourth largest budget item so you ignored it, 500+ billion this year alone all on the debt Trump inherited, explain it and how Trump is responsible?

Spending is in three categories: Mandatory, which is at $2.739 trillion; Discretionary at $1.305 trillion; and Interest on the National Debt, $363 billion. This article provides a detailed breakdown of each. You can also find links to past budgets at the end.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

U.S. treasuries are the safest place to put money in the world. in times of financial crisis treasuries are a safe.haven. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. treasury ever defaulted on an interest payment. financing trump's debt would be impossible.

 

[Conservative]

Spending is in three categories: Mandatory, which is at $2.739 trillion; Discretionary at $1.305 trillion; and Interest on the National Debt, $363 billion. This article provides a detailed breakdown of each. You can also find links to past budgets at the end.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

U.S. treasuries are the safest place to put money in the world. in times of financial crisis treasuries are a safe.haven. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. treasury ever defaulted on an interest payment. financing trump's debt would be impossible.

Better talk to Treasury before posting data, why would you buy anything other than the bank account of the U.S. And by the way there are only two categories, mandatory and discretionary

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Keep posting the same data over and over ignoring the OFFICIAL Data, doesn't do much for your credibility as if you care

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

You can try to justify IOU's in inter government holdings but I can't

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I am not justifying calling the Trust Fund an inter-government holding. I am explaining to you that what you called the classification does not change the mechanics of the program.

 

[Conservative]

I am not justifying calling the Trust Fund an inter-government holding. I am explaining to you that what you called the classification does not change the mechanics of the program.

The mechanics of the program have never been an issue but what the govt. did with the money is. Funding is as intended, use not so much. SS and Medicare ARE in Inter Govt. holdings and are funded by FICA which had the sole purpose of funding SS and Medicare and nothing else. The fact that there are trillions in IOU's should tell you something about what the bureaucrats do with dollars sent to them. Far too many people have no clue as to the taxes they pay, their purpose, or what the bureaucrats do with the money. The IOU's remain the issue and how they get funded.