Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Who? Me? First of all, you have no idea what percentage of my lifetime income I have paid into Federal Income Taxes.

I didn't mean to imply such, I meant it more as a general statement about how much we all pay into the system, esp for the 47% that pay none. As for things like SS, which I think is a small part of our total. I support raising the ceiling amount that is currently taxed for SS and then preventing Congress from using it for anything BUT for what it was intended.

What you are suggesting is nothing less than the creation of a plutocracy where the wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do.

No, what I always supported is a flatter tax where everyone pays a percent of their income while we close most loopholes for deductions. Where is the evidence that the " wealthy will have even more control over the governance of the rest of us than they already do."

So, you think that just because you are a fat cat that you get to disenfranchise me and millions of other Americans who happen to fall into the lower 47% of the national income bracket? Seriously?

Who says I am a fat cat? I just happen to be in the group that always pays taxes. And is that not telling about the whole issue. People who pay taxes, according to you are "fat cats", and people who don't are "disenfranchised". All I have said all along is that for all people to feel invested they have to pay into the system to feel responsible for it. And IMHO everyone should pay something into the system to feel a part of it.

I mean no personal disrespect to you or your personal situation and I don't want to even know anything about it. I am speaking of the current broken system of Federal taxation and have not really changed my views in years. But of course all of this will be mute if they don't come to some consensus and raise the Debit Ceiling.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

All I have said all along is that for all people to feel invested they have to pay into the system to feel responsible for it. And IMHO everyone should pay something into the system to feel a part of it.

No, this is what you said:

So you think that because you paid some small portion of your lifetime income you have a say in how all Federal Income Tax is taken from a minority of the population and redistributed to the rest of the population? Seriously?

Right there, you are saying that me and the rest of the Americans who fall into that 47% statistical group should have no voice in how government spending is appropriated.

You can't have it both ways. I agree that people who pay into "the system" feel more invested in it or "responsible" as you would say, but as I and others here have pointed out to you, Americans pay plenty of taxes despite the fact that some temporarily do not have to pay the Federal Income Tax.

I am active on other forums - one quite huge - and believe me, people in that lower 47% are from the far right to the far left and have all sorts of suggestions on government spending. They are scarcely like Oliver Twist holding out his bowl and begging, "More please."

I realized that you are deeply entrenched in your position, and I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to get you to look at other points of view.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I mean no personal disrespect to you or your personal situation and I don't want to even know anything about it...

Well, thank you. And no one, even you, is going to find out about my personal situation until I get my book contract signed.

Who says I am a fat cat? I just happen to be in the group that always pays taxes. And is that not telling about the whole issue. People who pay taxes, according to you are "fat cats", and people who don't are "disenfranchised".

Well, I can't resist pulling your tail. And from what you post here, it sounds as though you are doing quite well and are resentful of your tax burden as well as government oversight and regulation of big buisnesses both here and at home, with the petroleum companies as just one example. That to me sounds like a weight challenged cat who owns oil shares among other things.

But I could be wrong. Maybe you live in a cardboard box and connect to the Internet via a public library terminal. I don't know and really don't want to, either.

Paying taxes is not a criteria of mine for defining "fat cats", and you are the one who suggested that people in the lower 47% should not have a say in government spending, thus disenfranchising them.

[Spexxvet]

Anybody who has enough disposable income to afford a boat is a fat cat, IMHO.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

No, this is what you said:

Yes, and as I said I was generalizing.....

Right there, you are saying that me and the rest of the Americans who fall into that 47% statistical group should have no voice in how government spending is appropriated.

You can't have it both ways. I agree that people who pay into "the system" feel more invested in it or "responsible" as you would say, but as I and others here have pointed out to you, Americans pay plenty of taxes despite the fact that some temporarily do not have to pay the Federal Income Tax.

No what I have said and always said is the everyone should pay something and no one should pay nothing because they are not invested.

...resentful of your tax burden as well as government oversight and regulation of big buisnesses both here and at home, with the petroleum companies as just one example. That to me sounds like a weight challenged cat who owns oil shares among other things.

Yes resentful; no I don't own oil shares; no not a cat.

Paying taxes is not a criteria of mine for defining "fat cats", and you are the one who suggested that people in the lower 47% should not have a say in government spending, thus disenfranchising them.

"disenfranchising"... your words, not mine. All I want is everyone to pay something to be invested. I could care less if you make $20,000 a year or $20,000,000 a year, everyone should pay something equal in percent of their income and close all the loop holes.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No what I have said and always said is the everyone should pay something and no one should pay nothing because they are not invested.

Everybody pays something, so everyone is invested.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Everybody pays something, so everyone is invested.

HM, you and I and several others have reiterated this to Merc over and over, but for him, it simply does not compute.

Here's my theory as to why he refuses to accept the obvious:

(Note: FootFootFoot's Theorem that everything found on the Wikipedia site is a pack of lies has been temporarily suspended in order to bring you the following explanation.)

Merc is not interested in the Social Security component of the FICA tax because it’s regressive. That is, the effective tax rate declines as income rises. The Social Security component of taxes is actually a flat tax for wage levels less than the Social Security Wage Base. In other words, for wage levels above the wage base limit, the absolute dollar amount of tax owed remains constant.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. FICA is also not collected on unearned income, including interest on savings deposits, stock dividends, and capital gains such as profits from the sale of stock or real estate. The proportion of total income which is exempt from FICA as "unearned income" tends to rise with higher income brackets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...utions_Act_tax

Now it would seem that Merc is a pleasingly plump cat. Thus, for the above reasons, he is not “invested” in FICA taxes because in his case, they have leveled off and do not go up with any rise in his income, and in the second place, all his stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. are not subject to tax under FICA.

However, if you are an American in or above a certain income bracket, the Federal Income Tax will take increasingly larger chunks of change out of your bank account. This means Merc is invested in income tax rates, but he can’t imagine anybody caring about FICA. Thus, his continued insistence that the majority of Americans are happy to see Congress fling away tax money because if that FICA payment doesn’t pinch Merc why should it pinch anyone else?

[Griff]

I'd say you're on target. The right wing talking heads avoid that idea because it doesn't fit their convenient narrative about what should offend "productive" people. There are a lot of hard-working people who don't make enough money to pay income tax and never will, but they continue to pay FICA. Part of the problem could be the way some Democrats talk about an imaginary Social Security lock box, which gives the nutters cover, pretending it is an insurance vehicle not a government program.

[Stormieweather]

I'll probably regret poking my nose into this thread, but...

However, being exempt from income tax does not mean you’re exempt from federal taxes. Everyone who works is liable for payroll taxes, contributions to Medicare and Social Security that come out of every paycheck. There are also excise taxes on some goods and services, most notably the 18.4 cents per gallon tax on gasoline. The Congressional Budget Office found that earners in the lowest quintile, where most of those with no income tax liability fall, shouldered 4.3 percent of the payroll tax burden in 2005 and 11.1 percent of the excise taxes. Their effective tax rate (which is calculated by dividing taxes paid by total income) in those categories, according to the CBO, was in fact significantly higher than the rate of the top quintile, although that top one-fifth of the population had a much higher effective tax rate for individual and corporate income taxes

.

Factcheck.org

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Merc is not interested in the Social Security component of the FICA tax because it’s regressive. That is, the effective tax rate declines as income rises. The Social Security component of taxes is actually a flat tax for wage levels less than the Social Security Wage Base. In other words, for wage levels above the wage base limit, the absolute dollar amount of tax owed remains constant.

How do you know what I am or am not interested in? I am very interested in these programs because I have been paying into them since I was 15 years old.

Now it would seem that Merc is a pleasingly plump cat.

Ok, define that. What is the ceiling income that places one in this group of cats? Where does it start, where does it end?

...and in the second place, all his stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. are not subject to tax under FICA.

What investments do I have and where are they invested?

However, if you are an American in or above a certain income bracket, the Federal Income Tax will take increasingly larger chunks of change out of your bank account. This means Merc is invested in income tax rates, but he can’t imagine anybody caring about FICA. Thus, his continued insistence that the majority of Americans are happy to see Congress fling away tax money because if that FICA payment doesn’t pinch Merc why should it pinch anyone else?

Why would a pinch at one level be any different from a pinch at another level when the bite becomes bigger and bigger as income increases, thereby placing the majority of all income tax burden on a small group (minority) and little to none on another (majority) group? That is wealth redistribution and I don't support it.

So the truth comes out. This is not about taxes at all, it is about wealth envy. Make it a clash of classes. Rich versus Poor. Us versus Them. This is the Obama re-election strategy. In one of his latest speeches he mentioned corporate jet company owners 4 times in comparison to poor children. If you took all of the money every one of them earned this year it would not compare to the spending by this Administration in a single week.

Something is going to give and it will be painful for everybody at the current rate of spending by this Administration.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Why would a pinch at one level be any different from a pinch at another level when the bite becomes bigger and bigger as income increases, thereby placing the majority of all income tax burden on a small group (minority) and little to none on another (majority) group? That is wealth redistribution and I don't support it.
.

There we have it. the crux of the matter. How can you not see that a pinch from someone with little is more impactful than a pinch from someone who has much?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Everybody pays something, so everyone is invested.

Fail. If I pay $1 and you pay $100 and we get the same benefit, you are invested $99 more than I am.