Southern_Man 0 #76 October 16, 2012 QuoteQuote well, if you did not have income to your ministry (i.e. you were self-supported) then it didn't matter anyway. You could not opt out of any social security taxes, because you had no taxable income from that employment. I have no idea if this was an ordained ministry or not, that would also be a factor. I was ordained, some churches call it licensed, through a local church but worked independently. The IRS has some tests as to what counts. I believe that some of the standards were that you had to have the same rights and privlidges as other ministers, such as preaching and administering the sacraments, but it has been quite a few years since I looked at that. Anyway, if you didn't have income from ministry activities, it doesn't matter."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #77 October 16, 2012 QuoteAnd yet, you have not answered the original question. Why should we punish successful individuals because others aren't successful? They are paying 70% of the bill. How much more do you want from them? Taxes aren't punishment. Taxes are the dues we pay to belong to an advanced, civilized society. Even Jesus advocated paying taxes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #78 October 16, 2012 www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg Low income folks pay a far greater % of their income in payroll and excise taxes than the super-rich. The super-rich also have dodges available to them that others don't have. Putting it all together, the super-rich, like Romney, pay a smaller % of their income in TOTAL taxes than do the next 20%. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/total-tax-bill-income.jpg... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 October 17, 2012 Quote www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg Low income folks pay a far greater % of their income in payroll and excise taxes than the super-rich. The super-rich also have dodges available to them that others don't have. Putting it all together, the super-rich, like Romney, pay a smaller % of their income in TOTAL taxes than do the next 20%. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/total-tax-bill-income.jpg here is a good example where everyone should actually look at the evidence presented, not just either accept his premise at face value, or reject it because you don't like him. His statements are factual, but not significantly so. The top 20%, broken into smaller segments, pay between 29 and 30.4%. The next 20% pay 28.6%. For the upper 40%, it actually looks like a flat tax. The top 1% do have the lowest of the top quintile at 29%, but that's due to the lower SS payment as a percentage of income. There's nothing inappropriate about the FICA ceiling - benefits are determined by payments. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #80 October 17, 2012 QuoteQuote www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg Low income folks pay a far greater % of their income in payroll and excise taxes than the super-rich. The super-rich also have dodges available to them that others don't have. Putting it all together, the super-rich, like Romney, pay a smaller % of their income in TOTAL taxes than do the next 20%. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/total-tax-bill-income.jpg here is a good example where everyone should actually look at the evidence presented, not just either accept his premise at face value, or reject it because you don't like him. His statements are factual, but not significantly so. The top 20%, broken into smaller segments, pay between 29 and 30.4%. The next 20% pay 28.6%. For the upper 40%, it actually looks like a flat tax. The top 1% do have the lowest of the top quintile at 29%, but that's due to the lower SS payment as a percentage of income. There's nothing inappropriate about the FICA ceiling - benefits are determined by payments. FICA is a federal TAX, not a premium. It's a regressive tax.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #81 October 17, 2012 Quote FICA is a federal TAX, not a premium. It's a regressive tax. Social Security is also a progressive defined benefit retirement plan. Low earners and single income couples have a higher payout to contribution ratio than others. Low income individuals also make their Social security withdrawals tax-free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #82 October 17, 2012 QuoteQuote FICA is a federal TAX, not a premium. It's a regressive tax. Social Security is also a progressive defined benefit retirement plan. Benefits are not defined. They are subject to change at the whim of Congress. There is not even a guarantee of a payout at all. You should read the fine print. All of which is irrelevant anyway. Fact is that on average the % of income paid in total taxes by the top 1% is LESS than the % of income paid by the next 19%.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #83 October 17, 2012 Quote Here is a bit of homework. Before the Social Security system was implemented, the leading cause of death in the elderly was malnutrition/starvation. True or false? Hey Socialist, how come you never did your homework? Are you afraid of finding out facts that conflict with what your "tribe" believes? Intentionally maintaining ones abject ignorance is a sure sign that you are a Right Wing Conservative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #84 October 17, 2012 Your question was irrelevant.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #85 October 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg Low income folks pay a far greater % of their income in payroll and excise taxes than the super-rich. The super-rich also have dodges available to them that others don't have. Putting it all together, the super-rich, like Romney, pay a smaller % of their income in TOTAL taxes than do the next 20%. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/total-tax-bill-income.jpg here is a good example where everyone should actually look at the evidence presented, not just either accept his premise at face value, or reject it because you don't like him. His statements are factual, but not significantly so. The top 20%, broken into smaller segments, pay between 29 and 30.4%. The next 20% pay 28.6%. For the upper 40%, it actually looks like a flat tax. The top 1% do have the lowest of the top quintile at 29%, but that's due to the lower SS payment as a percentage of income. There's nothing inappropriate about the FICA ceiling - benefits are determined by payments. FICA is a federal TAX, not a premium. It's a regressive tax. If you wish to talk about FICA receipts without regard to their declared purpose, then you probably should stop distinguishing between "mandatory" and "discretionary" spending too. You've stated in the past that Medicare, SS, and defense are the only places where you can make a real dent in the deficit, so you're getting there... but you still say meaningless things like, "The defense budget exceeds all other federal discretionary spending combined." which is excluding SS and Medicare from the picture when it's convenient for you, the exact thing you're scolding kelpdiver for here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #86 October 17, 2012 What part of the word "TAX" is it that you don't understand?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #87 October 17, 2012 Quote What part of the word "TAX" is it that you don't understand? so why isn't it part of the regular income tax brackets, then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #88 October 17, 2012 QuoteQuote What part of the word "TAX" is it that you don't understand? so why isn't it part of the regular income tax brackets, then? Stupid question. Why isn't SALES TAX? PROPERTY TAX? EXCISE TAX. Federal income tax is NOT the only tax we get to pay.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #89 October 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote What part of the word "TAX" is it that you don't understand? so why isn't it part of the regular income tax brackets, then? Stupid question. Why isn't SALES TAX? PROPERTY TAX? EXCISE TAX. Federal income tax is NOT the only tax we get to pay. sales and property taxes are state taxes. Excise taxes are for explicit items. But SS, as you say, is an undefined benefits program and we've long used its running surpluses to fund wars and other deficit spending, so why not just bring it into the fold? If not, then quit your bitching about it's cap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #90 October 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote What part of the word "TAX" is it that you don't understand? so why isn't it part of the regular income tax brackets, then? Stupid question. Why isn't SALES TAX? PROPERTY TAX? EXCISE TAX. Federal income tax is NOT the only tax we get to pay. sales and property taxes are state taxes. Excise taxes are for explicit items. But SS, as you say, is an undefined benefits program and we've long used its running surpluses to fund wars and other deficit spending, so why not just bring it into the fold? If not, then quit your bitching about it's cap. Cool! Non sequitur and strawman rolled into one. That must have taken quite an effort. FACT - the % of income paid in TOTAL TAXES by the top 1% is less than the % paid by the next 19%. The very rich have managed to rig the system to their advantage. Romney's 13.9% for federal income tax is proof positive of that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #91 October 17, 2012 Quote Cool! Non sequitur and strawman rolled into one. That must have taken quite an effort. we don't have as many years of practice as you do. Quote FACT - the % of income paid in TOTAL TAXES by the top 1% is less than the % paid by the next 19%. Less by a whopping 3.1% (29 versus 29.9) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #92 October 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf you wish to talk about FICA receipts without regard to their declared purpose, then you probably should stop distinguishing between "mandatory" and "discretionary" spending too. You've stated in the past that Medicare, SS, and defense are the only places where you can make a real dent in the deficit, so you're getting there... but you still say meaningless things like, "The defense budget exceeds all other federal discretionary spending combined." which is excluding SS and Medicare from the picture when it's convenient for you, the exact thing you're scolding kelpdiver for here. What part of the word "TAX" is it that you don't understand? What did you infer from my post that made you respond with that? Because given the words that are there and what I meant by them, your response makes absolutely no sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #93 October 18, 2012 QuoteQuote Cool! Non sequitur and strawman rolled into one. That must have taken quite an effort. we don't have as many years of practice as you do. Quote FACT - the % of income paid in TOTAL TAXES by the top 1% is less than the % paid by the next 19%. Less by a whopping 3.1% (29 versus 29.9) Less is still less, regardless of your attempt to spin it into something different.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #94 October 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote What part of the word "TAX" is it that you don't understand? so why isn't it part of the regular income tax brackets, then? Stupid question. Why isn't SALES TAX? PROPERTY TAX? EXCISE TAX. Federal income tax is NOT the only tax we get to pay. sales and property taxes are state taxes. Excise taxes are for explicit items. But SS, as you say, is an undefined benefits program and we've long used its running surpluses to fund wars and other deficit spending, so why not just bring it into the fold? If not, then quit your bitching about it's cap. Cool! Non sequitur and strawman rolled into one. That must have taken quite an effort. FACT - the % of income paid in TOTAL TAXES by the top 1% is less than the % paid by the next 19%. The very rich have managed to rig the system to their advantage. Romney's 13.9% for federal income tax is proof positive of that. He also donated about 15% of his income to charity, but we'll cut you some slack for ignoring that. I'm sure the Mormon Church was truly grateful to have their $30+BILLION in assets increased by his donation.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #95 October 18, 2012 QuoteSo if I make million a year I should pay a higher excise tax on a gallon of gas than someone who makes thirty thousand? STRAWMAN (and not even a good one). Try again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,622 #96 October 18, 2012 QuoteExplain. If you try really hard you will figure it out for yourself.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #97 October 18, 2012 QuoteQuote The rich pay the vast majority of all income tax. As they should, because they have the vast majority of the nation's wealth. I've never figured out why people don't get that the lower income people don't pay much (or nothing) because they don't make much (or nothing). Angry Republican: "Why aren't those poor people paying taxes? They've got no housing to pay for, no vehicle to maintain, no need to maintain a business casual wardrobe; step up to the plate jobless or barely employed scum!" It's laughable to hear them complain that the small percent of people making most of the discretionary money need to pay even lower taxes than they are - which are nearly at an all-time low. I've said it before and feel the need to say it again - it is the propaganda coup of the century that the wealthy have somehow formed a coalition out of the very folks to whom they are giving the worst fucking." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #98 October 18, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Cool! Non sequitur and strawman rolled into one. That must have taken quite an effort. we don't have as many years of practice as you do. Quote FACT - the % of income paid in TOTAL TAXES by the top 1% is less than the % paid by the next 19%. Less by a whopping 3.1% (29 versus 29.9) Less is still less, regardless of your attempt to spin it into something different. Specific, accurate, and on point = spin? It is all getting clearer now...I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #99 October 18, 2012 QuoteYour question was irrelevant. In other words, you don't have a clue and won't bother to educate yourself. If you were to educate yourself by doing the research, and post the results on this public forum, you would help dispel not only your own ignorance, but that of other like minded folks. My statement is TRUE. SS helped fix that terribly un-christian outcome of the selfishness and greed of the right wing conservatives. None of THEIR tax money should be used to help the less fortunate in our society. Failure to have enought money to survive is strictly due to one's own personal failings. Society has no business helping those that are less fortunate. That would be un-christian of us. Ron, you are and will continue to be taking benefits through the most sociailist program available to the average citizen. The folks that do your thinking for you despise the program and want to end it. They were against it when it was proposed, fought against it the entire time it was being considered, and weaken it every time they get the chance. It doesn't take much research to uncover these facts. Of course, since such research might cause you to question the your tribe, and their position on these issues, you can not safely do such research. You might get expelled for challenging that which your leaders present as true. Ignorance can be corrected. Stupidity cannot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #100 October 18, 2012 QuoteYou have no clue as to what it takes to get Welfare and/or food stamps. NONE. A single application does not get rubber stamped and approved. The wait times are long. The documentation required is difficult. It is a right wing canard that welfare and food stamps are easy to get. Lies, when told over and over to people who are likely to believe them, are still lies. Must depend on location; but everything you claim is untrue where I live. Here in WI USA, one application (doesn't even have to be in person, can be done online in less than 15 minutes) can get a person free food stamps, free comprehensive health care, free school lunches, and if the income level is low enough - a bit of cash. I'm pretty certain if a person requests General Assistance cash an in-person interview is required. Service is very fast; almost always 1 week or less. If a more urgent need is expressed - no validation whatsoever required - they'll cut a food card same day." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
