The Inconsistency in the Tea Party

[Andy A]

Hi Andy:

You wrote, " The top 5% already pay 95% of them, or close to it. When are we going to get an income tax system where everyone pays something on what they earn?"

A. The Tax Foundation The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data cites the tax burden of the top 5% at 60%. Close is when your football team loses by three points in overtime.

B. Your much repeated talking point ignores Social Security, Medicare, excise, sales, property, use, and transfer taxes. If you don't figure those...

For the record. Peter Peterson - a hero of mine, vilified by liberal critics-labels Social Security as a transfer from lower middle class workers to upper middle class workers.

The current tax code is an abomination but we need to deal with facts and get away from bumper sticker talking points.

I knew when I wrote that the someone would take the generalization and run with it, but I expected to be someone who usually does so and revels in such antics. It was a generalization, I didn't look it up, as for those concerned with absolute accuracy here do,and for that I apologize. Buz, can you accept the fact that the top 50% of our wealthy pay 90% of our income tax? I don't accept all your "experts" anymore than you accept all of mine. The only thing I agree with in the above post is that the current tax code is an abomination. Your "facts" and my "facts", were I into research,which I admittedly am not these days, come from different but just as unreliable sources. They all have their own sources and agendas. Those who don't realize that have just not lived long enough yet.

 

[beachFool]

By any stretch the Tax Foundation is a staunchly conservative organization.

I am shocked to find out you don't agree with them.

A tax burden does not solely consist of federal income taxes.

I find the often repeated talking point "the bottom 50% don't pay enough taxes" disingenous.

I've been in both clubs and I like the top half-for any warts-better.

 

[beachFool]

In the future though it will unless it's tweaked.

The important distinction on cuts everybody needs to remember is that nobody is talking about cutting benefits to seniors currently receiving social security.

SS doesn't have a short term funding problem, it's a long term issue. So means testing, raising the retirement age, and something progressive that phases the general revenue aspects out for younger workers is the best bet.

That's because they vote.

So the solution becomes raising taxes on younger workers.

 

[AndrewG]

Just like any other insurance program there needs to be a lifetime benefit cap.

 

[Andy A]

No kidding! I am shocked to find out that a "tax burden" consists of more taxes than income tax particularly since Miss Kitty listed a whole litany of them recently.
It is too bad you think it is disingenuous for all Americans to pay a little something of what they earn back to support the many, many programs in place for all's benefit. It is called "assuming a responsibility", something I know you are well aware of and practice. It also gives one pride in being an American. Strange as it may seem, I rather like the fact I pay my way through taxes. That doesn't mean I am not in favor of a system that literally does away with the IRS. That said, it is my firm belief that there are many in this nation who don't and while I don't expect to find them on SoWal they are there. If you don't mind, Buz, and I'm sure you don't, I'll remain in the other club.

 

[idlewind]

Social Security is a long term problem but make no mistake, when the need arises to cash in some of those IOU's the government has made to the "trust fund" the problem will be huge. The time to fix the problem is now when we have time to minimize the pain.

The tax code is an abomination and must be reformed ASAP. The fair tax is a good place to start but I am willing to consider any system that consolidates various taxes into one collection method. By the way, the single most regressive tax on the books is the Social Security tax. Funny you do not hear liberals talk about that much.

Medicare/medicaid is a thorny problem but also the most time sensitive.

Whatever your feelings are about deficit reduction plans and their merits, it is clear the one option we do not have is sticking our head in the sand and ignoring the problem. That will result in a huge disaster in the future.

 

[Geo]

No kidding! I am shocked to find out that a "tax burden" consists of more taxes than income tax particularly since Miss Kitty listed a whole litany of them recently.
It is too bad you think it is disingenuous for all Americans to pay a little something of what they earn back to support the many, many programs in place for all's benefit. It is called "assuming a responsibility", something I know you are well aware of and practice. It also gives one pride in being an American. Strange as it may seem, I rather like the fact I pay my way through taxes. That doesn't mean I am not in favor of a system that literally does away with the IRS. That said, it is my firm belief that there are many in this nation who don't and while I don't expect to find them on SoWal they are there. If you don't mind, Buz, and I'm sure you don't, I'll remain in the other club.

Andy, I love you man and respect you but you are bumming me out.

Buzz is handing you verifiable facts to support his position. He is citing conservative organizations as his source. He makes a living as a financial professional and he uses his real name as his avatar.

You are acknowledging you haven't done your research. You aren't citing any experts or verifiable facts. But you are saying that your facts and Buzz's facts are equally suspect.

 

[poppy]

Andy, I love you man and respect you but you are bumming me out.

Buzz is handing you verifiable facts to support his position. He is citing conservative organizations as his source. He makes a living as a financial professional and he uses his real name as his avatar.

You are acknowledging you haven't done your research. You aren't citing any experts or verifiable facts. But you are saying that your facts and Buzz's facts are equally suspect.

Geo, you know Andy likes to say it's not his job to educate you, just to tell you when you're wrong. I like the Buzz method, he will tell you where he disagrees with you and then explain why with opinion, facts and supporting links.

 

[30ashopper]

That's because they vote.

So the solution becomes raising taxes on younger workers.

I wouldn't equate raising taxes with adjusting the system for rising life expectancies. These are two entirely different concepts. Benefits levels should also continue to be based on what you contribute.

I would also like to see ss funds separated from general revenue and placed in individual accounts. (Which the government is free to regulate.) People should be able to control what they have in savings. The fact that we can't do this today is criminal.

 

[30ashopper]

I guess the alternative would be to decrease benefits for future generations based on the increase in years lived past the retirement age. That would work as well.

The math on an investment like this is pretty straight forward.

(total contributions + interest) / (life expectancy - retirement age) = annual benefit