Of course they aren't but that is not the point.
It very much is the point, relative to your assertion that the government under the Bush administration has been a reverse robin hood.
Maybe its a more important issue for some other point that you want to make. In fact very likely it is.
" this program will pay out much less to whoever the recipient class is vs what they pay in starting with people who are 45 and under, today."
is, to the extent its true, a very important point, probably more important than the whole "reverse robin-hood" issue.
But its not a relevant point to the issue that we've been discussing.
The reality is that the rich pay more taxes then the poor, and that most transfers are either broad based or targeted towards the poor. Given those two facts there is no reasonable way to spin reality to support your "reverse robin-hood" claim.
Specific taxes, or programs, even BIG specific taxes or programs, are not the point, the government as a whole is, and at that level "reverse robin-hood" is nonsense.
The point is that this is a highly regressive tax that only targets the middle income and lower classes.
It doesn't only target the middle and lower classes, it targets anyone who has wages or a salary.
Its supposed to be "social insurance", with payments out going up as your payments in go up, but with both capped, so that you neither pay extra taxes past a certain point, or get extra benefits.
Then later it was modified so that taxes are payed on the income received from it, but only by people who are relatively wealthy (not just "the rich" unless you broadly define the term, but also upper middle class people). |
