jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (13 posts)

taxes: getting something for nothing...

  1. SparklingJewel profile image78
    SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago

    "The vision of getting something for nothing, or getting something that someone else has to pay for, explains why so many Americans are duped by politicians. A congressional hoax that's flourished for seven decades is the Social Security hoax that half of the Social Security tax (6.2 percent) is paid by employers, the other half (6.2 percent) paid by employees. The law says that if you are self-employed, you get to pay both halves. The fact of the matter is whether you're self-employed or not, you pay both halves of the Social Security tax that totals 12.4 percent. Let's look at it. Suppose you hire me and our agreed-upon weekly salary is $500. From that $500, you're going to deduct $31 as my share of the Social Security tax and you're going to add $31 as the so-called employer's share, sending a total of $62 to the IRS. Here's the question: What is the weekly cost for you to hire me? I hope you answered $531. The next question is: In order to make hiring me profitable, what must be the minimum dollar value of my contribution to your total output? If you said $531, go to the head of the class because if the value of my contribution to total output is only our agreed-upon salary of $500, you're making losses hiring me and you're going to be out of business soon. Therefore, if I am producing $531 worth of value per week, it is I who's paying the so-called employer as well as the employee share. The reason why Congress created the fiction of the employer share was to deceive us into thinking that we're paying fewer taxes than we in fact are." --economist Walter E. Williams

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Spoken like a true Tea partier.

      Social Security is not a hoax. It's one of the most sucessful programs passed during the 1930s. Throughout the postwar period, until Bush II, with was supported by both parties. It provides minimum retirement income based on contributions by beneficiaries and their employers throughout the working life of nearly all Americans. It is designed to provide enough income to pay for food and minimal lodging and to be supplemented by additional savings.

      Contrary to false information being spread by Wall Street banksters and the Tea Party, with a few minor adjustments Social Security will be on a sound financial footing for the forseeable future. [This is not true of Medicare where more drastic changes are needed to prevent cost increases from eating us up.]

    2. profile image0
      Texasbetaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Go learn who Walter Williams is. You shouldn't define a word using that word. It is an metaphor. Go look that up too.

  2. Rochelle Frank profile image95
    Rochelle Frankposted 7 years ago

    You are absolutely correct. However, workers are too short-sighted to put 10 or 12% away for their retirement and earn interest on it, so the government gets the use of their money for decades.

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image78
    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago

    Indeed - a tax anywhere in the economy is paid for by consumers somewhere along the line. When people say "income tax is about 30% or less", they are correct in one thought, but incorrect in another.

    Income tax, federal and state, inflation, sales tax, and every other tax out there easily puts the average amount of money you earn that goes straight to the government at, if not higher than, 50%.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That's a big exaggeration. Look it up. Your credibility would improve if your comments were more factual.

      http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/tax … axes_N.htm

      Here's another way of looking at taxes in the U.S.

      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing … tional.cfm

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
        Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I suppose I might be off by a bit - but neither of those graphs bothered to deal with the inflation tax.

        I must admit, though, that when the national income tax is about 25% for middle america... how can only 12% of everyone's incomes be going to the government when the minimum tax rate is 10%?

        I think USA today is either fudging the numbers, or ignoring numerous other taxes. I was a bit intrigued that they counted sales tax as "low" because people aren't buying things. That's a bit of a strange way to calculate it.

        Here's an article that directly contradicts what USA today posted. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ … -in-taxes/

  4. wilderness profile image98
    wildernessposted 7 years ago

    I'm sure you are on the low side, Evan.  I lose almost exactly 1/3 of my check to unavoidable taxes, at the 15% level.  Then I pay sales tax, real estate tax and irrigation tax.  Then I add vehicle registration tax, gas tax and cigarette tax.  Then a tax on phone usage and liquor tax.  Then...but it doesn't seem to ever end - just goes on and on forever.  You get my point, I'm sure.

  5. Doug Hughes profile image59
    Doug Hughesposted 7 years ago

    "PRINCETON, NJ -- Of six possible ways to address concerns with the Social Security system in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, a majority of Americans favor two, both of which would affect only wealthy Americans. "

    The two most popular fixes for SS -

    Requiring higher income workers pay SS on ALL their income. (67%)

    Limiting benefits for the wealthy." (63%)
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/141611/ameri … urity.aspx

    In a poll conducted for AARP -

    "The poll.. finds that 85 percent of adults oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit; 72 percent "strongly oppose" doing so...

    In fact, the AARP survey turns conventional wisdom about taxes on its head: half of all non-retired adults said that they would be willing to pay higher payroll taxes to ensure that Social Security will be there for them; 57 percent of adults under 50 would be willing to pay such a tax. "

    The poll, which was provided exclusively to HuffPost, finds that 85 percent of adults oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit; 72 percent "strongly oppose" doing so.

    Numbers like that simply don't appear in surveys of almost any other national issue that is subject to debate.

    In fact, the AARP survey turns conventional wisdom about taxes on its head: half of all non-retired adults said that they would be willing to pay higher payroll taxes to ensure that Social Security will be there for them; 57 percent of adults under 50 would be willing to pay such a tax.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/1 … 78374.html

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image78
      Evan G Rogersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      good ol' tyranny of the masses!

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Indeed.  What a surprise that people would actually vote for someone else to support them!

        I have to wonder just how many "rich" people voted to raid their own pockets, either by taking money directly or by cutting the return on the "retirement" plan they contributed to all their lives.

        1. Aficionada profile image90
          Aficionadaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          And, not only did they contribute to it all their lives, but they were required to, or else be penalized with huge fines and who-knows-what-else. 

          Why does it surprise anyone to hear that people want to get back the money that the government forced them to pay, while promising that it would be an investment to protect them in their retirement? (forced to, because they supposedly would not invest or save for retirement on their own - well, duh, the government takes all the money that would be available for investing!)

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Wise public policy for an industrial society where most people are not able to live out their lives on the family farm with support from their children.

 
working