Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (143290)	10/26/2008 1:38:16 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

plus the real problem is that fica taxes for social security and medicare are dishonest because the system will be broke for the current set of workers. The unfunded medicare liability for the projected baby boom is 32 trillion dollars. We're sunk with this and it should have been shut down in the 90s. Instead Dumbya ADDED to the expenditure with the medicare drug plan.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (143290)	10/27/2008 12:07:18 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 173976

Every worker pays payroll taxes, starting with the first dollar they earn. It's a regressive tax that the federal government counts as general revenue in its budget. And the majority of that money doesn't go to the wealthy. Also payroll taxes only make up about 35% of federal revenue. Meanwhile, the average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years. The group's share of the tax burden has risen, though not as quickly as its share of income. That fact supports my claim. Their percentage of the tax burden has risen. "Not as fast as their share of income" doesn't negate the fact that more money is being taken from them. To make things simple, lets say you make $1mil a year, and I do odd jobs paying me $5K a year. So your rich and I'm poor. Lets say the government on the net gives me another $5k a year, while on the net it takes $350K from you. Then you double your income, while my stays the same. Your tax payment increases, but doesn't double, it only goes up to $500K, even though your making $2mil a year. So now we are less equal (you make 400 times as much as me rather than just 200 times), and your tax burden hasn't gone up as fast as your share of the income. But your still a large net tax payer, while I still am an net receiver of money from the government. Its still "robin hood", not "reverse robin hood". Also "Of the 138 million households who file tax returns, only about 16 million, or 11 percent, earn enough to pay more to the feds in taxes than they get back in services..." corner.nationalreview.com And finally, when you consider that the top 1% of Americans own 33% of our total wealth you can see that far from being too progressive, our tax code is actually regressive. Your facts don't logically lead to your conclusion. If the rich pay more in taxes compared to their income, than the non rich (and they do) than by definition the tax code is "progressive". We tax income not wealth. In any case the top 1% pay more that 33% of federal income taxes.