$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

[alan1]

MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT LIKE THE FOUNDING GENERATION. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. A recent study shows that those making less than $100,000 have zero impact on policy....they should pay 0 taxes.

Maybe we should...................but here in reality land, what chance do you give that what you propose will happen? No taxes without representation?

But what about the houses and the gas taxes and such? All gas and all houses and all income are the same according to Skull and we should all pay the same. Of course we could all pay the same of the richer people. Skull never mentions what level the "same" will be.

If every citizen had to pay 15% of his income to the federal government-----------the lower and middle classes would demand that government stop wasting their money and cut the tax rate-----------they would threaten revolution. When its YOUR money that being taken and wasted, you get pissed really quickly.

Lets take it one step further.
No more payroll withholding of taxes, make them write the check to the government so they understand even better. That would probably piss people off even more.

 

[Redfish]

How so? The 1935 Social Security Act required that Social Security funds be invested in government securities.

and kept separate from the general fund until LBJ. He merged the two in order to make ends meet rather than show a deficit.

Investing in govt securities is quite different from using the SS fund to pay the bills.

BULLSHIT!
And more BULLSHIT!

It is criminal that you No-Information voters get to nullify my vote!

Social Security History

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

you just confirmed what I said, then your cite attempts to circumvent the truth via weasel wording and twisting facts.

but thats fine, believe what ever fantasy you choose. I don't really give a crap what lies you choose to subscribe to.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT LIKE THE FOUNDING GENERATION. NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. A recent study shows that those making less than $100,000 have zero impact on policy....they should pay 0 taxes.

Maybe we should...................but here in reality land, what chance do you give that what you propose will happen? No taxes without representation?

But what about the houses and the gas taxes and such? All gas and all houses and all income are the same according to Skull and we should all pay the same. Of course we could all pay the same of the richer people. Skull never mentions what level the "same" will be.

If every citizen had to pay 15% of his income to the federal government-----------the lower and middle classes would demand that government stop wasting their money and cut the tax rate-----------they would threaten revolution. When its YOUR money that being taken and wasted, you get pissed really quickly.

Yes! That's been my point of contention as well. Tax rates for all income levels should be tied together. If one groups taxes rise the rest rise proportionately. It's easy to vote for someone else to pay more when it doesn't hurt you, or in many cases you are on the end of the promised windfall.

 

[Care4all]

How so? The 1935 Social Security Act required that Social Security funds be invested in government securities.

and kept separate from the general fund until LBJ. He merged the two in order to make ends meet rather than show a deficit.

Investing in govt securities is quite different from using the SS fund to pay the bills.

BULLSHIT!
And more BULLSHIT!

It is criminal that you No-Information voters get to nullify my vote!

Social Security History

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

CORRECT, and lbj joint unified budget took nothing from SS to pay for what income taxes should be paying....we didn't have a surplus SS back then, that came after Reagan's Social security tax increase,

he only unified the budget to MASK the percentage of our money spent on the viet nam war....i.e. he was spending 50% of the unified budget on the war, vs without the unified budget he was spending 90%....

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Maybe we should...................but here in reality land, what chance do you give that what you propose will happen? No taxes without representation?

But what about the houses and the gas taxes and such? All gas and all houses and all income are the same according to Skull and we should all pay the same. Of course we could all pay the same of the richer people. Skull never mentions what level the "same" will be.

If every citizen had to pay 15% of his income to the federal government-----------the lower and middle classes would demand that government stop wasting their money and cut the tax rate-----------they would threaten revolution. When its YOUR money that being taken and wasted, you get pissed really quickly.

Lets take it one step further.
No more payroll withholding of taxes, make them write the check to the government so they understand even better. That would probably piss people off even more.

Sure worked with union dues in Wisconsin didn't it.

I also think all receipts should break down what percentage of your taxes went to what program. A little longer receipt but at least people would see where their money is going.

 

[edthecynic]

and kept separate from the general fund until LBJ. He merged the two in order to make ends meet rather than show a deficit.

Investing in govt securities is quite different from using the SS fund to pay the bills.

BULLSHIT!
And more BULLSHIT!

It is criminal that you No-Information voters get to nullify my vote!

Social Security History

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

you just confirmed what I said, then your cite attempts to circumvent the truth via weasel wording and twisting facts.

but thats fine, believe what ever fantasy you choose. I don't really give a crap what lies you choose to subscribe to.

The perpetual dumb act!!!

 

[Redfish]

BULLSHIT!
And more BULLSHIT!

It is criminal that you No-Information voters get to nullify my vote!

Social Security History

Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

you just confirmed what I said, then your cite attempts to circumvent the truth via weasel wording and twisting facts.

but thats fine, believe what ever fantasy you choose. I don't really give a crap what lies you choose to subscribe to.

The perpetual dumb act!!!

Yes, you do display that characteristic. you bolded the wrong line

" Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget."


one common budget vs two separate budgets = merged. But keep up the dumb act, it suits you quite well.

 

[edthecynic]

you just confirmed what I said, then your cite attempts to circumvent the truth via weasel wording and twisting facts.

but thats fine, believe what ever fantasy you choose. I don't really give a crap what lies you choose to subscribe to.

The perpetual dumb act!!!

Yes, you do display that characteristic. you bolded the wrong line

" Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget."


one common budget vs two separate budgets = merged. But keep up the dumb act, it suits you quite well.

Whether the SS trust fund is on budget or off budget it was NEVER part of the general fund as YOU falsely claimed. And you did claim the SS trust fund and the GENERAL FUND were merged.

SS funds were merged with the general fund by LBJ.

It has been back off budget since 1990, but they STILL were used to show a surplus under Clinton and reduce the deficit under Bush. Nothing is different now than it was before or after LBJ.

 

[regent]

When SS had surplus money it was always intended to be loaned to the government, but the two funds, the general fund and the SS fund were accounted separately. LBJ merged the two accounts and the result, at the time, seemed like we had a lower debt. During Clinton's term the Congress passed a law separating the accounts as before LBJ. It was all just bookkeeping.

 

[dcraelin]

Why do either?

I think 16% of $20 Million is far better than 32% of $1 Million. At the high end the basis for the tax rate should be one that maximizes funding, not one that makes for a good political talking point.

one thing both right and left could agree on I think is the elimination of the tax-exemption for municipal bonds.....the right could agree because these bonds fund some of the most idiotic of local projects....unneeded and unused"convention centers" and sports stadiums for the super-rich. ...the left could agree because these bonds go for corporate Welfare and because they are a tax loophole really only useful for the wealthy .

Fax free municipal bonds don't just fund idiotic local projects. They are the major funding source for almost all local projects. Making municipal bonds taxable means they will be less attractive to investors. The result? Instead of money going to public projects – repairing bridges, fixing dams, funding schools – it will go to Apple, Netflix, or Citibank. Is that what we want? There are already plenty of incentives to invest in the private sector; we shouldn't erase incentives to encourage private investment in the public sector.

Opposition from almost every state and local government will insure that municipal bonds remain tax free, at least for most investors. There are proposals in the Obama administration to limit the tax free status.

the cost of capital should be the same for all projects, public or private. Having tax-free bonds means that all sorts of businesses are begging for a government handout. TIF districts being a major gimmick used, to subsidize developers, that should be doing it privately. What are the "incentives" for private investments? I maybe could see a very limited use for school building but thats it.

 

[dcraelin]

Maybe we should...................but here in reality land, what chance do you give that what you propose will happen? No taxes without representation?

But what about the houses and the gas taxes and such? All gas and all houses and all income are the same according to Skull and we should all pay the same. Of course we could all pay the same of the richer people. Skull never mentions what level the "same" will be.

It is unlikely without a massive revolt. But it does help justify 'progressive' taxation.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

I think I like the idea of a progressive land tax actually, and elimination of the mortgage deduction. Unrealistic to have varying taxes on gas, but waste of federal highway spending needs to be reigned in.

Social Security taxes, which are paid in a higher percentage by the less wealthy, now fund a large chunk of federal government.

Not really. In our wondrous Obameconomy, Social Security, since 2010, has been paying out more benefits than was paid in from payroll taxes.

I dont believe that is accurate. I believe the SS fund wont start losing money till 2033, that's a projection, it could even be later.

 

[edthecynic]

When SS had surplus money it was always intended to be loaned to the government, but the two funds, the general fund and the SS fund were accounted separately. LBJ merged the two accounts and the result, at the time, seemed like we had a lower debt. During Clinton's term the Congress passed a law separating the accounts as before LBJ. It was all just bookkeeping.

Wrong, the two accounts were never merged, only the bookkeeping changed under LBJ, and it was changed back before Clinton. But whether accounted for separately or together the federal deficit or surplus was calculated the same.

If there was a difference, how do you explain Clinton seeming to have a surplus while the national debt increased or Bush having a deficit of $168 billion in 2007 when the national debt increased half a trillion after the two accounts were separated again in 1990???? Borrowing against the SS trust fund ALWAYS made the deficit look smaller by the exact same amount no matter which bookkeeping method was used.

 

[RKMBrown]

If every citizen had to pay 15% of his income to the federal government-----------the lower and middle classes would demand that government stop wasting their money and cut the tax rate-----------they would threaten revolution. When its YOUR money that being taken and wasted, you get pissed really quickly.

Minor update, if every citizen had to work for a living and there was no welfare, and every citizen had to pay 15%.. then they would demand the government stop wasting their money.

As it is, most folks on the left just want to make sure someone else is getting screwed more than they are. If they get to collect 50k a year in welfare they won't give a shit if they have to pay 5k for their 50k in subsidies.

In the real world, nobody gets $50K in welfare. And when you destroy welfare, it will cost you ten times as much to keep them in prison. That's as smart as a vegetable.

Nobody gets 50k in welfare?

$7,365 per year OCA subsidy.
$30,396 per year disability.
$600 per year cell phone plan.
$6,000 per year food stamps.
$30,000 per year for scholarships and / or student loans backed by govco to attend college.

Should I continue?




Cause the only way to earn money is to be a crook? ROFL

 

[Care4all]

Minor update, if every citizen had to work for a living and there was no welfare, and every citizen had to pay 15%.. then they would demand the government stop wasting their money.

As it is, most folks on the left just want to make sure someone else is getting screwed more than they are. If they get to collect 50k a year in welfare they won't give a shit if they have to pay 5k for their 50k in subsidies.

In the real world, nobody gets $50K in welfare. And when you destroy welfare, it will cost you ten times as much to keep them in prison. That's as smart as a vegetable.

Nobody gets 50k in welfare?

$7,365 per year OCA subsidy.
$30,396 per year disability.
$600 per year cell phone plan.
$6,000 per year food stamps.
$30,000 per year for scholarships and / or student loans backed by govco to attend college.

Should I continue?




Cause the only way to earn money is to be a crook? ROFL

not proof at all...you have shown no proof to your cut and paste....did you not review it to see if it was accurate and find out where these numbers come from and if the average welfare recipient/worker receives all of those supposed benefits at once?

Why pass along that crap? Why pass along that string of lies?

I really don't understand why people like you and many others don't take some pride in yourselves and in your own accuracy in what you post?

 

[RKMBrown]

In the real world, nobody gets $50K in welfare. And when you destroy welfare, it will cost you ten times as much to keep them in prison. That's as smart as a vegetable.

Nobody gets 50k in welfare?

$7,365 per year OCA subsidy.
$30,396 per year disability.
$600 per year cell phone plan.
$6,000 per year food stamps.
$30,000 per year for scholarships and / or student loans backed by govco to attend college.

Should I continue?




Cause the only way to earn money is to be a crook? ROFL

not proof at all...you have shown no proof to your cut and paste....did you not review it to see if it was accurate and find out where these numbers come from and if the average welfare recipient/worker receives all of those supposed benefits at once?

Why pass along that crap? Why pass along that string of lies?

I really don't understand why people like you and many others don't take some pride in yourselves and in your own accuracy in what you post?

Are you completely incapable of understanding the difference between what he said, which was that nobody receives 50k a year in welfare, and what the term average might have meant if he had chosen to say the average person on welfare does not receive 50k?

NVM you are probably one of those "low information" folks. FYI my numbers are what I'd be able to get if I decided to switch from being a productive member of society to a democrat voter.

 

[zeke]

Nobody gets 50k in welfare?

$7,365 per year OCA subsidy.
$30,396 per year disability.
$600 per year cell phone plan.
$6,000 per year food stamps.
$30,000 per year for scholarships and / or student loans backed by govco to attend college.

Should I continue?




Cause the only way to earn money is to be a crook? ROFL

not proof at all...you have shown no proof to your cut and paste....did you not review it to see if it was accurate and find out where these numbers come from and if the average welfare recipient/worker receives all of those supposed benefits at once?

Why pass along that crap? Why pass along that string of lies?

I really don't understand why people like you and many others don't take some pride in yourselves and in your own accuracy in what you post?

Are you completely incapable of understanding the difference between what he said, which was that nobody receives 50k a year in welfare, and what the term average might have meant if he had chosen to say the average person on welfare does not receive 50k?

NVM you are probably one of those "low information" folks. FYI my numbers are what I'd be able to get if I decided to switch from being a productive member of society to a democrat voter.

You are a lying fuck. And your biggest disability is your shitty thinking.

But go ahead, share the disability you have with us fellow board members. I am curious about what disability you have that would qualify you for some sort of welfare or SSI income. And wonder why you would be so fucking stupid that you aren't receiving that income presently. (if in fact you are disabled.)

And the government does not pay for simply being stupid. So sorry if that was what you are counting on. But if they(government) would pay for being stupid, you would be rich.
Like winning the lotto for you. Yea, a stupidity check. It's in the mail.

 

[RKMBrown]

not proof at all...you have shown no proof to your cut and paste....did you not review it to see if it was accurate and find out where these numbers come from and if the average welfare recipient/worker receives all of those supposed benefits at once?

Why pass along that crap? Why pass along that string of lies?

I really don't understand why people like you and many others don't take some pride in yourselves and in your own accuracy in what you post?

Are you completely incapable of understanding the difference between what he said, which was that nobody receives 50k a year in welfare, and what the term average might have meant if he had chosen to say the average person on welfare does not receive 50k?

NVM you are probably one of those "low information" folks. FYI my numbers are what I'd be able to get if I decided to switch from being a productive member of society to a democrat voter.

You are a lying fuck. And your biggest disability is your shitty thinking.

But go ahead, share the disability you have with us fellow board members. I am curious about what disability you have that would qualify you for some sort of welfare or SSI income. And wonder why you would be so fucking stupid that you aren't receiving that income presently. (if in fact you are disabled.)

And the government does not pay for simply being stupid. So sorry if that was what you are counting on. But if they(government) would pay for being stupid, you would be rich.
Like winning the lotto for you. Yea, a stupidity check. It's in the mail.

Apparently all you have to do is tip a government official to get on the disability roles.

The one most people are faking these days is chronic fatigue syndrome.

 

[zeke]

Are you completely incapable of understanding the difference between what he said, which was that nobody receives 50k a year in welfare, and what the term average might have meant if he had chosen to say the average person on welfare does not receive 50k?

NVM you are probably one of those "low information" folks. FYI my numbers are what I'd be able to get if I decided to switch from being a productive member of society to a democrat voter.

You are a lying fuck. And your biggest disability is your shitty thinking.

But go ahead, share the disability you have with us fellow board members. I am curious about what disability you have that would qualify you for some sort of welfare or SSI income. And wonder why you would be so fucking stupid that you aren't receiving that income presently. (if in fact you are disabled.)

And the government does not pay for simply being stupid. So sorry if that was what you are counting on. But if they(government) would pay for being stupid, you would be rich.
Like winning the lotto for you. Yea, a stupidity check. It's in the mail.

Apparently all you have to do is tip a government official to get on the disability roles.

Is that all you got? You just PROVED you are a liar dude. Either you got a disability that you can collect 30k a year on or you don't. You said you did in the post above. Which is it?

 

[RKMBrown]

[/B]


You are a lying fuck. And your biggest disability is your shitty thinking.

But go ahead, share the disability you have with us fellow board members. I am curious about what disability you have that would qualify you for some sort of welfare or SSI income. And wonder why you would be so fucking stupid that you aren't receiving that income presently. (if in fact you are disabled.)

And the government does not pay for simply being stupid. So sorry if that was what you are counting on. But if they(government) would pay for being stupid, you would be rich.
Like winning the lotto for you. Yea, a stupidity check. It's in the mail.

Apparently all you have to do is tip a government official to get on the disability roles.

Is that all you got? You just PROVED you are a liar dude. Either you got a disability that you can collect 30k a year on or you don't. You said you did in the post above. Which is it?

You must be either the most naive person on the planet, or the dumbest lying piece of shit ever to be birthed by a welfare queen.

 

[RKMBrown]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/08/n...s-charged-in-social-security-scheme.html?_r=0