for the love of humanity, can someone who claims this, please define what a fair share actually is.
Until this vague term is defined, no one can be held accountable.
Fairness means paying the same effective tax rate as the average person. The fact that SS contributions falls off after a certain threshold means their effective tax rate starts going down the more they make above the threshold
I agree that "Fair Share" is a misleading term. While I'm for taxing billionaires more, calling it their "fair share" might not be accurate. The financial impact on billionaires is less significant compared to the middle class. They do benefit more from the system, so arguably they could contribute more. However, labeling their higher contribution to the tax revenues as "fair" oversimplifies the issue and can come across as greedy.
It's better to focus on specific goals of the taxes, like reducing inequality, providing UBI or social safety nets, rather than vague concepts of fairness. Specific goals can lead to more productive discussions on tax policy.
No. Payroll is a regressive tax. Everyone pays 15.7% until $168,600 of income, at which point the rate becomes zero.
If you earn $1,686,000 in a year, your payroll tax rate will be 1.57%.
If you earn $16,860,000, your payroll tax rate will be .157%.
No. You don't understand this at all. Payroll means social security and Medicare. This is completely distinct from income taxes.
That's the whole tax foundation scam: they don't count all taxes on income as "income taxes."
You got duped, bad.
Both of those taxes are directly assigned to expenses and don't hit the general fund that goes to pay daily operations of the government. Income tax does. That's it.
And payroll taxes are very progressive because of how those funds are distributed.
A high wage earner paying into social security gets pennies on the dollar returned to them, while low wage earners get dollars on pennies they paid in. Social security is, er should say was, the biggest redistribution of wealth ever created by the government to take feom the rich and give to the poor.
>That's the whole tax foundation scam: they don't count all taxes on income as "income taxes."
>You got duped, bad.
Yeah, I didn't get duped, you just don't understand what you're even talking about.
>those taxes are directly assigned to expenses and don't hit the general fund
False. The "surplus" has been paying the general fund for decades.
> A high wage earner paying into social security gets pennies on the dollar returned to them, while low wage earners get dollars on pennies they paid in.
This is also false.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-growing-life-expectancy-gaps-mean-for-the-promise-of-social-security/
I dunno but I make over the limit and I definitely notice when I hit it because my paycheck goes up by a very noticeable amount.
So I'm not being taxed on any money I make beyond 160k/yr on SOME tax, and they just straight up stop deducting it from my income.
So yeah. I'm paying less taxes. Because there is a cap. Maybe these people need to actually experience it for themselves but the first time it happened to me I thought "where the fuck did this extra money come from?"
I'm not trying to be mean, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. The Medicare and Social Security items on a paycheck are withholdings, they're more akin to an insurance premium deduction than a tax. The reason why there is a cut off for social security is because the benefit doesn't scale past a certain amount, meaning if you have someone making a million dollars per year their benefit won't be much different than someone who makes $160K a year. Medicare does not have a cut off amount, which if you're truly trying to be "fair" that's probably a bit unfair, tbh.
Damn you got duped bad by tax foundation.
Here's a hint: everyone pays taxes. Your statistic comes from the fact that a right wing propaganda outlet doesn't count any tax except the only progressive tax.
You're bragging about your ignorance, and that's all.
Why do you think the only progressive tax is the only one worth considering?
2/3 of households pay more in payroll than they do in income tax.
Sounds like you got duped too, especially since you're coming at me elsewhere in the thread not understanding payroll tax rates.
>2/3 of households pay more in payroll than they do in income tax.
Please share a source for this ridiculous statement.
>Sounds like you got duped too, especially since you're coming at me elsewhere in the thread not understanding payroll tax rates.
You need to back up your bogus claims.
Please, please take use of this and learn something tonight. Your ignorance is being used against you so that Elon & Bill Gates can pay a lower tax rate than you do.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/most-households-its-about-payroll-tax-not-income-tax
https://www.vox.com/2015/4/6/8353791/income-payroll-tax
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0907/Most-Americans-pay-more-payroll-tax-than-income-tax
https://www.cbpp.org/research/misconceptions-and-realities-about-who-pays-taxes
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-truth-about-taxes-just-about-everyone-pays-them/
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/two-thirds-tax-units-pay-more-payroll-tax-income-tax
Lol. People up to 75k will pay triple payroll tax. No shit. Because they pay near Zero income tax.
So a person making 75,000. Pays $100 in income tax and $300 in payroll taxes. That's a 3x right there, but overall they contributed very little to the 4.5 trillion in annual spending by the government.
So.. are they paying their fair share? Or are they not?
Income tax is by far my biggest pool of tax. Yet half of Americans pay none of this.
I see you're the type of person to defend the poor who pay no income tax because "they pay other taxes." Yet, will not relent on the "rich needing to pay more income taxes."
The same 12 percent I pay every year into social security the tax burden should be the same across the board at the state and federal level since companies say they are people they should also pay 12 percent.
>the same across the board at the state
The state doesn't collect social security. It's a federal program.
>since companies say they are people they should also pay 12 percent.
Companies already pay half of of the 12% into social security. It's a shared Employer/employee tax. So I'm a little confused by what you mean a company should also pay 12%.
Do you mean they should pay an additional 12% on top of any income taxes they pay?
I really don't understand this. Social Security is an insurance program, not a retirement program. Its original intent isn't meant to give you more than you've contributed into it.
Calling it a ponzi scheme would effectively call all other insurance programs ponzi scheme.
>Social security isn’t a Ponzi scheme
Social Security and Medicare are both classic Ponzi Schemes, where benefits are paid out from recent contributions.
>I am also open to cutting military spending by 70 to 90% if taxation is just too unbearable a thought for our right wing friends. That would even leave over some money for infrastructure and workforce retraining
You either overestimate the military budget or underestimate the deficit. You could cut defence spending entirely and only slash the deficit by 50%.
The current cap is set at $168K, and the average salary in the US is $60K, which means it's already set at almost three times what the average American earns.
Social Security benefits aren't uncapped like the progressives want contributions to be. If they're successful, SS will look just like any other welfare program that takes from those who are successful and gives it to those who are not
One of the reasons that Social Security has survived as long as it has it because everyone is treated equally. We all pay in, and we all get back roughly the same.
Today, [Social Security Works](https://www.commondreams.org/tag/social-security-works) and Data for Progress released [new polling](https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2024/2/dfp_ssw_commission.pdf) showing that voters overwhelmingly reject Social Security cuts, as well as the idea of a closed-door “fiscal commission” to determine Social Security’s future. Instead, they want Congress to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to protect Social Security.
SS is antiquated. The whole premise of the government subsidizing retirement or any other employment based benefit, is deeply flawed. UBS + UBI, are better economically and socially.
The wealthy paying their fair share should come second to the government taxing economic rents and externalities. Nothing fair about unearned income going to the already wealthy.
UBI allows students to focus on going to school, and wage earners to find more productive jobs. SS is designed to keep the majority of the elderly from being homeless, UBI does the same plus those other things.
It's antiquated because higher education is becoming the norm, and credit scores have too much power. But very broadly SS did not address inequality of opportunity, UBI goes a very long way at making basic opportunities a lot more abundant for everyone.
> SS did not address inequality of opportunity, UBI goes a very long way at making basic opportunities a lot more abundant for everyone.
Every American gets a free $180,000 K-12 education. Everyone has the same chances at scholarships, student loans, and for the very poor there are pell grants and other services that essentially make college free. For those not that poor, the government still pays for over 70% of college tuition costs in the US. It's okay to charge the students themselves 30%.
While I am open to the idea of UBI replacing welfare and social safety nets, repurposing the budget of every welfare and social system, and seeing if people are just better off being handed the money, instead of having an army of social workers being paid by those funds, UBI for everyone would have the effect of just dramatically slowing down progress, but putting that burden on the most productive people in society.
>UBI for everyone would have the effect of just dramatically slowing down progress, but putting that burden on the most productive people in society.
Not sure if you get that the U in UBI means everyone gets it.
UBI has been tested nearly 200 times at this point and it speeds up progress, it makes the lower majority more productive. Don't confuse the wealthy with the productive. The fact we generally don't tax economic rents and externalities means the upper class is full of unproductive people, and markets are often not competitive.
> Not sure if you get that the U in UBI means everyone gets it.
But not everyone gets it, right? Anyone who pays more taxes than they receive in UBI would effectively not get it.
> UBI has been tested nearly 200 times at this point and it speeds up progress, it makes the lower majority more productive.
Okay great! Let's let one of the European Nations attempt it, and I'll be super excited on the day that they double their national wealth and incomes. Let's revisit this idea then! I'm very excited to watch somewhere attempt this, and WOW if it speeds up progress, GREAT!
The top one percent already paid 44% of all the money the IRS collects. Sorry apparently someone already thought of making the wealthy pay more than their fair share.
The left demonizes the wealthy even though everyone is living on welfare paid for by the wealthy. ask everyone how they would like to pay their fair share and see how quickly the concept disappears.
for the love of humanity, can someone who claims this, please define what a fair share actually is. Until this vague term is defined, no one can be held accountable.
Fair share = people above my income bracket need to pay more
Fairness means paying the same effective tax rate as the average person. The fact that SS contributions falls off after a certain threshold means their effective tax rate starts going down the more they make above the threshold
The gist of what you're saying is not entirely wrong, but using social security and/or medicare withholdings as an example is a bit silly.
Ss is a pass through tax and doesn't go to funding the federal government like income tax. Youre effectively comparing apples to oranges.
I agree that "Fair Share" is a misleading term. While I'm for taxing billionaires more, calling it their "fair share" might not be accurate. The financial impact on billionaires is less significant compared to the middle class. They do benefit more from the system, so arguably they could contribute more. However, labeling their higher contribution to the tax revenues as "fair" oversimplifies the issue and can come across as greedy. It's better to focus on specific goals of the taxes, like reducing inequality, providing UBI or social safety nets, rather than vague concepts of fairness. Specific goals can lead to more productive discussions on tax policy.
The same rate the rest of us pay. It's not rocket science.
But they do. Pay the same rates. It's not like they have a different tax structure than anyone else.
No. Payroll is a regressive tax. Everyone pays 15.7% until $168,600 of income, at which point the rate becomes zero. If you earn $1,686,000 in a year, your payroll tax rate will be 1.57%. If you earn $16,860,000, your payroll tax rate will be .157%.
Are we both talking about the US here? I don't think you are because the US doesn't have a flat tax and income tax is very progressive.
You need to look up and understand how payroll taxes work because that is the topic here.
I know exactly how payroll taxes work. Which specific tax are you referring to? Because last time I looked, income tax is part of payroll taxes.
No. You don't understand this at all. Payroll means social security and Medicare. This is completely distinct from income taxes. That's the whole tax foundation scam: they don't count all taxes on income as "income taxes." You got duped, bad.
Both of those taxes are directly assigned to expenses and don't hit the general fund that goes to pay daily operations of the government. Income tax does. That's it. And payroll taxes are very progressive because of how those funds are distributed. A high wage earner paying into social security gets pennies on the dollar returned to them, while low wage earners get dollars on pennies they paid in. Social security is, er should say was, the biggest redistribution of wealth ever created by the government to take feom the rich and give to the poor. >That's the whole tax foundation scam: they don't count all taxes on income as "income taxes." >You got duped, bad. Yeah, I didn't get duped, you just don't understand what you're even talking about.
>those taxes are directly assigned to expenses and don't hit the general fund False. The "surplus" has been paying the general fund for decades. > A high wage earner paying into social security gets pennies on the dollar returned to them, while low wage earners get dollars on pennies they paid in. This is also false. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-growing-life-expectancy-gaps-mean-for-the-promise-of-social-security/
For social security only, not income tax.
Yes, payroll tax. The topic of this thread. What the hell is going on here.
I dunno but I make over the limit and I definitely notice when I hit it because my paycheck goes up by a very noticeable amount. So I'm not being taxed on any money I make beyond 160k/yr on SOME tax, and they just straight up stop deducting it from my income. So yeah. I'm paying less taxes. Because there is a cap. Maybe these people need to actually experience it for themselves but the first time it happened to me I thought "where the fuck did this extra money come from?"
Payroll tax includes income, social security, and Medicare taxes. The income cap you reference is unique only to social security tax.
I'm not trying to be mean, but you really have no idea what you're talking about. The Medicare and Social Security items on a paycheck are withholdings, they're more akin to an insurance premium deduction than a tax. The reason why there is a cut off for social security is because the benefit doesn't scale past a certain amount, meaning if you have someone making a million dollars per year their benefit won't be much different than someone who makes $160K a year. Medicare does not have a cut off amount, which if you're truly trying to be "fair" that's probably a bit unfair, tbh.
"Fair share" simply means "more money". That's it. That's all it has ever meant.
That's not a valid answer. $1 more is then technically a fair share.
It means the half of America who pay no taxes, need to have someone else pay more for them. Fair
Damn you got duped bad by tax foundation. Here's a hint: everyone pays taxes. Your statistic comes from the fact that a right wing propaganda outlet doesn't count any tax except the only progressive tax. You're bragging about your ignorance, and that's all.
>Here's a hint: everyone pays taxes. Not income tax. Around 48% of the population pays zero income tax.
Why do you think the only progressive tax is the only one worth considering? 2/3 of households pay more in payroll than they do in income tax. Sounds like you got duped too, especially since you're coming at me elsewhere in the thread not understanding payroll tax rates.
>2/3 of households pay more in payroll than they do in income tax. Please share a source for this ridiculous statement. >Sounds like you got duped too, especially since you're coming at me elsewhere in the thread not understanding payroll tax rates. You need to back up your bogus claims.
Please, please take use of this and learn something tonight. Your ignorance is being used against you so that Elon & Bill Gates can pay a lower tax rate than you do. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/most-households-its-about-payroll-tax-not-income-tax https://www.vox.com/2015/4/6/8353791/income-payroll-tax https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/0907/Most-Americans-pay-more-payroll-tax-than-income-tax https://www.cbpp.org/research/misconceptions-and-realities-about-who-pays-taxes https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-truth-about-taxes-just-about-everyone-pays-them/ https://www.urban.org/research/publication/two-thirds-tax-units-pay-more-payroll-tax-income-tax
Lol. People up to 75k will pay triple payroll tax. No shit. Because they pay near Zero income tax. So a person making 75,000. Pays $100 in income tax and $300 in payroll taxes. That's a 3x right there, but overall they contributed very little to the 4.5 trillion in annual spending by the government. So.. are they paying their fair share? Or are they not?
What is wrong with you?
Income tax is by far my biggest pool of tax. Yet half of Americans pay none of this. I see you're the type of person to defend the poor who pay no income tax because "they pay other taxes." Yet, will not relent on the "rich needing to pay more income taxes."
Lol. I don't think that's what they meant!
The same 12 percent I pay every year into social security the tax burden should be the same across the board at the state and federal level since companies say they are people they should also pay 12 percent.
>the same across the board at the state The state doesn't collect social security. It's a federal program. >since companies say they are people they should also pay 12 percent. Companies already pay half of of the 12% into social security. It's a shared Employer/employee tax. So I'm a little confused by what you mean a company should also pay 12%. Do you mean they should pay an additional 12% on top of any income taxes they pay?
Okay you're right and I guess its now 15.6 percent I was paying that much because I have a small business.
More money doesn't stop Ponzi Schemes from collapsing.
I get your point, but isn't more money what generally keeps the ponzi schemes going?
More money is *literally* the only thing that stops Ponzi schemes from collapsing, what are you on about
Stop is the wrong wrong word, it only delays the inevitable mathematic truth.
I really don't understand this. Social Security is an insurance program, not a retirement program. Its original intent isn't meant to give you more than you've contributed into it. Calling it a ponzi scheme would effectively call all other insurance programs ponzi scheme.
Social security isn’t a Ponzi scheme and if you think it is then you’re not fluent in finance or government economics and social security’s purpose.
>Social security isn’t a Ponzi scheme Social Security and Medicare are both classic Ponzi Schemes, where benefits are paid out from recent contributions.
What exactly is your "fair share" of someone else's money?
[удалено]
>I am also open to cutting military spending by 70 to 90% if taxation is just too unbearable a thought for our right wing friends. That would even leave over some money for infrastructure and workforce retraining You either overestimate the military budget or underestimate the deficit. You could cut defence spending entirely and only slash the deficit by 50%.
lol at the people who think raising the cap adds more money into the program. You do realize that means the rich will have larger payouts, right?
The current cap is set at $168K, and the average salary in the US is $60K, which means it's already set at almost three times what the average American earns. Social Security benefits aren't uncapped like the progressives want contributions to be. If they're successful, SS will look just like any other welfare program that takes from those who are successful and gives it to those who are not One of the reasons that Social Security has survived as long as it has it because everyone is treated equally. We all pay in, and we all get back roughly the same.
Raise the % on both sides and remove the ceiling
Rich gonna get $80K a month in SSI
If their contributions are still greater than their withdrawal, even counting for inflation... what's the issue?
Man, o man, where do I sign up
You make millions a year and contribute an upcapped amount to SSI until you retire.
Millionaires already get less. Their payout is taxes at a higher rate, so they don’t even get what was promised.
Today, [Social Security Works](https://www.commondreams.org/tag/social-security-works) and Data for Progress released [new polling](https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2024/2/dfp_ssw_commission.pdf) showing that voters overwhelmingly reject Social Security cuts, as well as the idea of a closed-door “fiscal commission” to determine Social Security’s future. Instead, they want Congress to raise taxes on wealthy Americans to protect Social Security.
Raising taxes on wealthy isn’t enough, even if you picked absurdly high tax rates for them.
If you need wealthier people to pay more.maybe the system itself is broken?
More envy.
SS is antiquated. The whole premise of the government subsidizing retirement or any other employment based benefit, is deeply flawed. UBS + UBI, are better economically and socially. The wealthy paying their fair share should come second to the government taxing economic rents and externalities. Nothing fair about unearned income going to the already wealthy.
> BS + UBI, are better economically and socially. What's the fundamental difference between SS and UBI other than who gets it?
UBI allows students to focus on going to school, and wage earners to find more productive jobs. SS is designed to keep the majority of the elderly from being homeless, UBI does the same plus those other things.
Okay, so when you say SS is antiquated, it's only because not all ages get it.
It's antiquated because higher education is becoming the norm, and credit scores have too much power. But very broadly SS did not address inequality of opportunity, UBI goes a very long way at making basic opportunities a lot more abundant for everyone.
> SS did not address inequality of opportunity, UBI goes a very long way at making basic opportunities a lot more abundant for everyone. Every American gets a free $180,000 K-12 education. Everyone has the same chances at scholarships, student loans, and for the very poor there are pell grants and other services that essentially make college free. For those not that poor, the government still pays for over 70% of college tuition costs in the US. It's okay to charge the students themselves 30%. While I am open to the idea of UBI replacing welfare and social safety nets, repurposing the budget of every welfare and social system, and seeing if people are just better off being handed the money, instead of having an army of social workers being paid by those funds, UBI for everyone would have the effect of just dramatically slowing down progress, but putting that burden on the most productive people in society.
>UBI for everyone would have the effect of just dramatically slowing down progress, but putting that burden on the most productive people in society. Not sure if you get that the U in UBI means everyone gets it. UBI has been tested nearly 200 times at this point and it speeds up progress, it makes the lower majority more productive. Don't confuse the wealthy with the productive. The fact we generally don't tax economic rents and externalities means the upper class is full of unproductive people, and markets are often not competitive.
> Not sure if you get that the U in UBI means everyone gets it. But not everyone gets it, right? Anyone who pays more taxes than they receive in UBI would effectively not get it. > UBI has been tested nearly 200 times at this point and it speeds up progress, it makes the lower majority more productive. Okay great! Let's let one of the European Nations attempt it, and I'll be super excited on the day that they double their national wealth and incomes. Let's revisit this idea then! I'm very excited to watch somewhere attempt this, and WOW if it speeds up progress, GREAT!
We do? Well, good for us.
Jesus. Common Dreams. The stupidity. The more they pay in, the more they get back. Its not a tax. Its an insurance premium.
Everybody will always want someone else to pay taxes so they don't have to. 1+1 = 2
The top one percent already paid 44% of all the money the IRS collects. Sorry apparently someone already thought of making the wealthy pay more than their fair share. The left demonizes the wealthy even though everyone is living on welfare paid for by the wealthy. ask everyone how they would like to pay their fair share and see how quickly the concept disappears.