TWCL

[Casual Notice]

"Payrol taxes" is a term that applies to one of two actual named taxes:

1. Taxes deducted from the periodic paycheck of employees (i.e. Federal Income Tax, Social Security), or
   
2. Taxes paid by an employer on the payroll disbursed by their company (Unemployment Insurance Contribution, Social Security matching Funds)

In neither case, is there any such thing as a "payroll tax"

FICA and HI Tax rates are a set 7% of income combined. I'll just assume that you understand the basic math that contradicts your statements above.

Other source of Federal revenue (Corporate taxes, customs and duties, excise, and estate taxes) are more likely to strike the wealthy.

State income taxes are even more heavily weighted toward income level than the (admittedly low) federal rate that tops at 38%. Sales taxes are based on consumption, although most states do not charge a sales tax on food items and other life necessities (I did notice, during my recent trip to NS, that Canada does however). All other state and local taxes are based on the value of real (as in land) property.

Now, if you had suggested closing loopholes so that corporations would be unable to claim 0 income on their taxes while claiming a $35,000,000,000 profit on their 10K, that's something I can agree with. You didn't, however. You want to raise the nominal rate, which only affects those persons who honestly and forthrightly declare their income, effectively punishing people for acting honorably, and encouraging them to seek illegal or immoral means to preserve their right to property.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[Dutch]

Um... the title of this thread... solidarity with the 99%...

If they're the 99% then they probably don't need the solidarity, do they? Every bugger except those few in the 1% are already in there being solid together.

Or... don't all of the 99% realise they should be solid?




I'm with Casual on this one (not just because I've seen him shoot down so many debates here with his researched answers that never resort to sarcasm and random capitalisation, but it does help!) because I think taxes should be uniform across a population too. If the tax rate for everyone is, let's say, 30% of their income, then the lower income brackets are going to be paying less in total than those in higher brackets anyway.

To me, just because someone is earning more than you, doesn't mean they should be paying a higher percentage of their income towards taxes. By the very fact they're earning more, they will be paying larger values anyway. If you're going to raise the taxes for one, you raise the taxes for all.

But I don't have much sympathy for the Occupy groups anyway. They've taken over capital cities Down Here as well and demanded free wifi from the local councils, etc. When they were told they could camp for the entire week but they had to be out by a certain time seven days later, and then decided no, they cracked the sads because the police moved in and moved them on. C'mon, you were allowed a full week to make your point, then the council asked you to move on to give the city back to the people who live and work there, and you dug your heels in.

Even better... some muppet took a photo of a policeman who was using force to drag a protester off a colleague... which they then promptly published across the internet under a banner saying this man was a thug and a danger to society, etc, because he was protecting his colleague from the aggression of the protesters.

When crap like that gets pulled Down Here, most of us just wave these movements off and tell them to try to find a job of their own.

Probably doesn't add anything to your debate, but if they could ask for something concrete and stick with it, and maybe just work with the city they are occupying instead of against it, they might have been taken more seriously.

My two cents, anyway.

(Which I think is currently worth a little more than US 2c - was a good day a few months back when the Aussie broke parity with the Greenback! )
_________________

[Traegorn]

Casual Notice wrote:

"Payrol taxes" is a term that applies to one of two actual named taxes: Taxes deducted from the periodic paycheck of employees (i.e. Federal Income Tax, Social Security), or Taxes paid by an employer on the payroll disbursed by their company (Unemployment Insurance Contribution, Social Security matching Funds) In neither case, is there any such thing as a "payroll tax" FICA and HI Tax rates are a set 7% of income combined. I'll just assume that you understand the basic math that contradicts your statements above. Other source of Federal revenue (Corporate taxes, customs and duties, excise, and estate taxes) are more likely to strike the wealthy. State income taxes are even more heavily weighted toward income level than the (admittedly low) federal rate that tops at 38%. Sales taxes are based on consumption, although most states do not charge a sales tax on food items and other life necessities (I did notice, during my recent trip to NS, that Canada does however). All other state and local taxes are based on the value of real (as in land) property. Now, if you had suggested closing loopholes so that corporations would be unable to claim 0 income on their taxes while claiming a $35,000,000,000 profit on their 10K, that's something I can agree with. You didn't, however. You want to raise the nominal rate, which only affects those persons who honestly and forthrightly declare their income, effectively punishing people for acting honorably, and encouraging them to seek illegal or immoral means to preserve their right to property.

I was referring to the Unemployment Insurance Contribution, and you know it. Coloquially, this is referred to as the payroll tax (which has two L's, but I'm not sure if that's a typo).

Your attack on semantics is so ridiculous, it pretty much just confirms you're a dick and not worth my time. But we've gotten way off track here - regardless of whether or not you agree with the Occupy movement, you claimed it was not a protest (which it is) and that they don't have specific goals (which they do).

So I'm done playing with you now.

[Casual Notice]

You don't pay unemployment insurance, your employer does.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[Traegorn]

And the vast majority of american workers are employed by businesses not owned by the top 1%. About 83% of all nonfarm private sector workers in america are employed by companies with less than 500 workers.

So, not the 1% paying most of the payroll taxes.

But you'll probably just follow this up with some other nonsense equivocation or semantic jab... Or maybe I'm wrong and you'll switch to something new like strawman arguments or ad hominem attacks. In any case, I'm done bothering with you as it's clearly shouting into the wind.

[Casual Notice]

I think it's a pretty solid bet that the vast majority of employers are corporations and don't fit into your convenient classification of human beings by income level at all.

As for "shouting into the wind," I don't debate to convince my opponent. That person generally has his or her mindmade up about a subject and debate will serve no purpose. I debate to (a) correct or fill the holes in my own knowledge and understanding and (b) convince those who are watching but have not cast their minds in concrete.

For the record, by the way, you have insulted me directly twice now, and I have simply countered your unsupported claims with facts.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[LukeSurl]

1% of the webcomics have 42% of the pageviews! Occupy XKCD street!
_________________

[WriterWhoCantDraw]

"Disproportionate 38% of the burden"? B.S. When Eisenhower was President, the rich paid 90%. Guess what? The economy didn't collapse. In fact, it did pretty damned well. I'm getting sick of how the poor and middle class are expected to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction, but the rich aren't asked to give one cent more than they do now. Bullshit. If they could afford 90% then, they can afford, say, 45% now. Nobody's asking to go back to 90%. If you want to cut programs for the poor, fine, but you'd damned well better stick a bit of the burden on those who can afford it the most, too.

Since Eisenhower, taxes on the rich have gone down, while taxes on the middle class have gone steadily up. It wasn't just that "evil right-winger" Ronald Reagan who shifted the burden, either...it started with the liberal hero, John F. Kennedy. It should be the middle class out protesting, not just a bunch of college students, but that's a whole other argument. I think the OWS movement is a bit misguided, at best, but there's a valid point in there somewhere if they'd just wise up enough to get it across.
_________________

[NaarieKermie]

Just wanted to put this out there as far as current USA tax rates are concerned:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/18/warren-buffett/warren-buffett-says-super-rich-pay-lower-taxes-oth/
_________________

[Casual Notice]

Quote:

When Eisenhower was President, the rich paid 90%. Guess what? The economy didn't collapse. In fact, it did pretty damned well.

Actually, once the post-War Boom period wore off, it started to stagnate, which is why President Kennedy lowered taxes his first year as President.

Quote:

I'm getting sick of how the poor and middle class are expected to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction, but the rich aren't asked to give one cent more than they do now.

This is a non-starter. The bulk of austerity-based deficit reduction is borne by a government that pays hundreds of billions of dollars more each year than it takes in.

Buffet's claims have been disproven so many times over, I'm not even going to bother posting a link to the google search.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[NaarieKermie]

Casual Notice wrote:

Buffet's claims have been disproven so many times over, I'm not even going to bother posting a link to the google search.

Actually the article I posted was an analyst of his claims coupled with an explanation of how the tax system works.

I'm not taking sides here because the issue(s) is(are) much too complicated to be explained in sound bites or solved though simple measures. I just thought that was some useful information.
_________________

[WriterWhoCantDraw]

But my point was this: The rich are not special little snowflakes. Yes, you're right that the government got us into debt, but to pay it off, you need to cut get more revenue in, or cut spending...and it seems that everything being suggested by the GOP these days is to cut programs that benefit the poor and middle class, or even raising taxes on those groups. Nothing, nothing can affect those special little snowflakes, though! Heaven forbid! They're SPECIAL!!

And those 90% tax rates....held up into the mid '60's. The cuts didn't actually get enacted until after JFK was killed. Postwar boom was kind of over by then. And still, the economy didn't tank near as much as it has now. The whole thing with jobs being tied to tax rates is a myth. Bush lowered them again, and I didn't see any jobs being created. The best point you've made so far is the one about the tax loopholes...but I don't see many Democrats, much less Republicans, even suggesting closing those. So I think you can forgive people for being a little pissed off. It's the "special snowflake" thing. It gets real fucking old. Hell, even Reagan raised taxes on the rich a bit...but all those guys who practically canonize him can't even bring themselves to do what little rate-raising he did.

Deficit reduction comes down to this: Cut some programs, raise the rate on the rich to 45%, and for the love of God, get us out of all those countries that don't want us there in the first place (another valid argument that nobody but Ron Paul ever seems to make). But that would require pissing off the military-industrial complex...and the politicians can't have their donors getting all butthurt, now can they?
_________________

[Casual Notice]

Quote:

cut programs that benefit the poor and middle class

How, exactly do you think those programs are paid for? Do you think the money just appears out of thin air? The government doesn't produce anything, and must acquire money by taking it from citizens; this is the social contract.

The question you have to ask yourself, is, "Is this program enough of a benefit to enough people that I don't mind maintaining it at the point of a gun?" All taxes are collected at gunpoint, even if they don't show you the weapon directly.

As to the programs and services themselves, I'll admit that Congress and the Senate have both been lazy in where and how they make the cuts. The cuts would be better made by slicing out large sections of middle and upper bureaucracy than they would as "general" cuts. No Child Left Behind money got spent, by and large, on overpaid administrators, not teachers, books and equipment.

The place the government really needs to fix itself so it fixes the economy is by repealing every free trade agreement we have. Free trade isn't free if both traders aren't playing by the same rules, and our "trading partners" don't have anywhere near our costs for production. This has resulted in a United States that makes almost nothing. We have all but lost our industrial base, and bigger government won't bring it back.

As for being pissed off, every single thing that has caused our economy to sputter and stagnate was something I, and others better known and informed, warned against when it was put in place (the Bush tax cuts weren't one of them), from free trade agreements that subsidized foreign development with American jobs to bank deregulation that broke down the wall between private savings and uninsured investment, to no-credit loans that made college degrees and home ownership about as common as used popcorn and just as appreciated. You want pissed, try being one of the Cassandras of the last thirty years.

But I don't like saying, "I told you so," and I'm too old to think I can fix anything by squatting in a park. You want to fix things, stop thinking in Black/White Piscean terms and start thinking, What's not working/Who's not fulfilling his promises/How do we fix this.

I don't begrudge anyone any money they have earned or inherited, but fuck you if you think you're going to put a gun in my face and take what I have gained through my own hard work, and that's what your precious "programs" are: robbery.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[Dutch]

I have one question - are the tax rates for the 'poor' and 'middle' class, as a percentage of their earnings, higher than those of the 'rich'? Do they all pay a set percentage that's the same, say 30%, or are the rich paying a lower percentage of their earnings than the other two? For example, the rich pay 25% tax compared to 30% for the rest?

Because if that were the case, then I'd agree with raising just their tax rate to bring it into uniformity with the other two. If they're already paying the same tax rate, or higher, than the other two, then no, they don't deserve to have their tax rate higher than the others just because 'they earn more'.

To me, that's just as much not fair on the rich if the same were to happen the other way around. To me, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If they're paying a lower relative tax rate, then push them up, yep. If they're not, raise them all, or find some other way to steady your ship.



(This is coming from a citizen of what, according to the figures our media is throwing around lately, is the highest taxed country in the world at the moment (per head of population, anyway), with a brand new tax just brought in for next year that the huge majority don't want, and the government won the election on by saying they would never bring it in.

We have our own little grumbles over here.
_________________

[Casual Notice]

The US income tax rate is scaled from effectively nothing at the low end to 38% at the high end. Social Security and Medicare taxes are pegged at an across-the-board 7%. Other taxes are based on consumption of items or properties owned.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R