Posted on 10/23/2002 4:16:36 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
I have tried my absolute best to explain it, but anything I say has been rejected.
Your task is to justify why the other 50% of the population, who does not actually pay for this government, used almost 80% of the government funds.
I am guilty for falling into your trap. And for that, I do applogize to my fellow Freepers.
With the huge increases in taxes that are not considered income taxes, ie FICA, the lower paid among us pay much more than it seems.
Ahem, SS tax is an income tax and goes into general revenue the same as the individual and corporate income taxes, and is a "Social Security" tax in name only, it collected totally independantly of any program same as every other tax.
The SS program receives its funding by appropriation and sales of treasury bonds and notes to be paid off out of general revenue receipts(taxes) the same as any other federal program. Social Security, despite political rhetoric to the contrary, is neither an insurance nor a retirement program.
HELVERING v. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3101. Rate of tax
Title 26 US Code Subtitle C Sec. 3501. Collection and payment of taxes
Nothing has changed todate inspite of all the political rhertoric about "lock boxes" and "Trust Funds" for SS/Medicare funds, the tax that is supposed to be levied for SS/Medicare is indistinguishable in operation from what we normally refer to as the Income Tax, and is paid into general revenues in just the same manner.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND FRAUD
CRS Report for Congress (98-422 EPW)
Social Security: and the Federal Budget:
"Its taxes like all other federal funds flow into the U.S. Treasury and its benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury."
"Taking the Social Security trust funds "off budget" has not changed how Social Security funds are handled. They are treated the same way today as they were in 1937 when Social Security taxes were first levied -- the tax receipts flow into the U.S. Treasury and benefit payments flow out of the U.S. Treasury. The Treasury Department issues federal securities to the Social Security trust funds to reflect the receipt of these taxes, and redeems securities from the trust funds to reflect Social Security expenditures, but the money itself flows to and from the Treasury. "
"While the trust funds have an important role in monitoring the finances of the program and maintaining its fiscal discipline, they are basically accounting devices. The federal securities they hold are not assets for the government. When an individual buys a government bond, he or she has established a claim against the government. When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against some other entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another. It certainly establishes legal claims against the government for the Social Security system (i.e., it is a legal form of indebtedness of the government and does count as part of the federal debt; see Table 3 on the next page), but the system is part of the government. Those claims are not resources the government has at its disposal to pay for future Social Security claims. Simply put, the trust funds do not reflect an independent store of money for the program or the government, and taking Social Security "off budget" did not change this. "
What Social Security Trust Fund
"The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Fleming v. Nestor (1960), 363 US 603; that there is no Constitutional right to Social Security benefits. Social Security benefits can legally be cut or eliminated et any time, and beneficiaries have no recourse. The Court held that, "To engraft upon the Social Security System a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustments to ever changing conditions which it demands."
Why, if I have personally lived on both sides of this issue, did your comments get me so upset?
Then I thought about it:
In High School, the other big boys would thump on me because I was the smart kid in class. They absolutly hated me, because I made them look dumb.
20 years later, these same idiots that thumped upon me, are now asking me to support my family, and theirs also.
No Freaking way!
REVENGE OF THE NERDS!
I just crunched some numbers from last years tax tables. BTW, the CAP for FICA last year was $80,400. I used two examples. One person making at the CAP and the other making 10X that amount at $804,000. Both reduce there Gross Income by 20% to a $64,320 and $643,200 Taxable Income respectively.
Both pay the maximum in FICA (12.4%): $9,969.60
Income Tax on $64,320 = $14,308.
Income Tax on $643,200 = $228,601.35
$14,308 + $9,969.60 = $24,277.60 or 30.2% of $80,400.
$228,601.35 + $9,969.60 = $238,571.95 or 29.7% of $804,000.
Outstanding research and that is what I expect from Freepers!
Even if you ignore the point that the higher bracked is paying for something they will never see returned to them.
Guess that is your concept of fair and equal government of and by the people.
Once again, does my vote count more than the other guy that is not actually paying for our government? And if not, why not?
Looks to me like one person's vote should be counted about 1,000 times more.
One person is actualy contributing to our government and the other one is not.
Hey wait a minute!
Why are you adding, instead of subtracting the $9,969.60 from the income?
Ok, call me ignorant. If this some sort of NEW MATH that I failed to lean in school?
Where did the $80,400 come from?
Fellow Freeper, I can and will accept your ideas if they are presented to me in a logical fashion.
Lie to me, and you will be exposed.
It's really scary, when you look at the whole table and see the trends.
You can find it at http://www.actionamerica.org/taxecon/irsdata.html.
To get the spreadsheet, click on the button at the bottom of the page.
I hope that some of you find this useful.
The federal individual income tax return that captures everyone's attention each April, is nothing more an accounting sheet the government cons individuals, held at ransom, into filling out. It puts a blinder on the eyes of the voter, and totally distorts their perceptions as to the real impact of taxation in their lives.
The tax system is actually fuelled from the dollars we spend which pays the gross wages, and investment returns to individuals who are the ultimate purchasers of goods and services and hence the payers of all taxes.
We spend "disposable income", (i.e. "aftertax" income) which finances all income that is taxed. Viewing from the perspective of consumption dollars, where it is all generated, we get an entirely different perspective on what is being done to us. Between business income taxes and payroll taxes, the burden on citizen as reflected through higher prices, lower wages, and lower return on investements are indeed horrendous.
The following article covers the mechanism on how the current Federal tax system propagates and is embedded into consumption expenditure.
DO YOU PAY YOUR INCOME TAX
AT THE SUPERMARKET?
by D. Sherman Cox J.D. L.L.M. Taxation
The full impact of the federal tax system(taxes in gross wage/salaries & other compensation + business income/payroll taxes) added onto the base price(without taxes) of retail consumption goods and services is 36% for federal taxes alone. Why? Because all wages and the taxes on them are paid for out of sales receipts to business,(i.e. consumption expenditure).
Federal tax revenues collected as % of current family expenditure = fed/(1-state-fed-savings) =
23.5/(1-.235-0.102-0.012) = 36.09%
If we add in the cost of federal tax compliance & enforcement, the percentage that truely represents the burden on the family due to the Federal income payroll tax system increases by nearly 55% of tax free prices.
Where Have All the Dollars Gone?
How the government robs Peter to pay him back.
By James L. Payne, Reason Magazine February '94When the overhead costs are added together, (24 percent compliance costs, 33 percent disincentive costs, and 8 percent other costs), they total 65 percent of tax revenue.
Current total Federal tax revenues are about $1900billion, more than $1,000 billion additional dollars are added on onto consumption prices due to the business costs of complying with the federal income/payroll tax laws.
Percent total current federal burden (taxes + compliance costs) of consumption dollars = 36*(1900+1000)/1900 = 54.95% economic burden added on to base retail prices.
Reduce the taxes on business and simplify them in any way possible ultimately means a lower price and higher standard of living for the citizen.
keep up the educatin'
Next 95% - 43.53%
Yes, the burden per wage-earner in the top 5% is
[ ( 56.47/5 ) / (43.53/95) = 24.65 ]
almost 25 times that on the remaining 95%.
Since I'm in the remaining 95%, I can say that it's shameful that the burden is so uneven, with the remaining 95% not carrying their share.
The answer is simple: tax cuts for everybody until the tax burden gets so low nobody cares what the distribution is anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.