Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This discussion has veered away from the issue of means testing SS into one of the nature, and progressiveness, of US tax policy.
As relates to SS, and its viability which is what means testing is all about, the bottom line is that you can't solve the projected financial shortfalls solely with means testing unless you are prepared to cut benefits for middle class Americans. End of story.
Take SS payments from all HedgeFund managers and it will not move the SS needle. Take from the top 1 % and it still will not solve SS financial problems. There simply are not enough of them.
So you can rant all you want about wealth concentration, which clearly is a problem in the country, but it does not solve SS issues unless we are prepared as a nation to turn the system upside down and start taxing assets (wealth tax) as well as income. And even then, that revenue would be general tax revenue and not SS revenue, which we all know politicians would fritter away on other pork besides SS financial viability.
Want to? No. Do I think it will happen sooner or later? Unless we change course dramatically, it almost has to at some point; not for ideological reasons but because there won't won't be enough discretionary income in the system. We are already badly in arrears because we didn't tax the income enough as the wealth was being amassed. I have a hard time closing my eyes to what we are allowing to happen at both ends of the spectrum. If we ignore the problem, it will not just go away. I am not sure of the best way out, but one of the biggest obstacles is people immediately making accusations like that when someone just generally describes the overall state of things.
Want to? No. Do I think it will happen sooner or later? Unless we change course dramatically, it almost has to at some point; not for ideological reasons but because there won't won't be enough discretionary income in the system. We are already badly in arrears because we didn't tax the income enough as the wealth was being amassed. I have a hard time closing my eyes to what we are allowing to happen at both ends of the spectrum. If we ignore the problem, it will not just go away. I am not sure of the best way out, but one of the biggest obstacles is people immediately making accusations like that when someone just generally describes the overall state of things.
So the public policy is going to be to confiscate wealth from rich people because the middle class refuses to save for their retirement? What happens if you do that is that all that wealth moves offshore with a couple of mouse clicks. The effective tax rate on the affluent has been fairly constant for the last 75 years. The effective Federal income tax rate on the bottom half of the country is essentially zero and is far lower than it used to be. The median family with a couple of kids and a home pays the employee half of payroll taxes and that's about it. Proportionally, the affluent pay far more of their income in taxes than the middle class. If you squeeze harder, it's just going to trigger tax avoidance.
There are a very small number of outlier rich people who dodge the more usual 36% effective tax rate most 1%ers pay. In the name of fairness, tighten up on that but it's not going to significantly change the bottom line on tax revenues.
Besides property taxes, I would believe that its fair that a portion of the growth of wealth above a certwn very high level should be taxed. After all, if there were large charitable contributions to offset them, they are positively contributing to the greater good. Wealth doesn't maintain itself untouched, it decays away.
Besides property taxes, I would believe that its fair that a portion of the growth of wealth above a certwn very high level should be taxed. After all, if there were large charitable contributions to offset them, they are positively contributing to the greater good. Wealth doesn't maintain itself untouched, it decays away.
To repeat myself: everyone with less than you is poor. Everyone with more than you is rich.
Fairness, like everything in life, is a relativistic concept. Where you sit often (not always) determines your point of view.
And once again, unless you go after the mass wealth of the middle class you are making symbolic gestures. There may be value in that from a societal point of view, but it will not solve the financial crisis facing SS, or the greater debt problem of government.
You really think we can't come up with some definition for wealth? This chart is out of date (it has gotten worse!) but it is easy to read:
Yes, the top 10% had 73% of the wealth in 2007. More recent data has the top 1% up to 41% now, so the trend of concentration has continued. You can repeat yourself all you want quoting sayings; it is indeed very possible to quantify wealth and income in a meaningful way.
Quote:
the mass wealth of the middle class
Part of the 90% that has 27% of the wealth, you mean. That is where you propose they get the money.
You really think we can't come up with some definition for wealth? This chart is out of date (it has gotten worse!) but it is easy to read:
Yes, the top 10% had 73% of the wealth in 2007. More recent data has the top 1% up to 41% now, so the trend of concentration has continued. You can repeat yourself all you want quoting sayings; it is indeed very possible to quantify wealth and income in a meaningful way.
Part of the 90% that has 27% of the wealth, you mean. That is where you propose they get the money.
And according to Heritage, the top 10% of tax payers pay 68% of federal taxes. Interesting symmetry there to your stated 73% of wealth.
"Top earners were the main target of recent tax increases under President Obama, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income."
Now I don't know for a fact but I presume these numbers do not reflect FICA taxes, which would increase % contributions of lower wage earners, BUT the tax system is already doing much of what you advocate.
And according to Heritage, the top 10% of tax payers pay 68% of federal taxes. Interesting symmetry there to your stated 73% of wealth.
"Top earners were the main target of recent tax increases under President Obama, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income."
So half the wage earners have to share less than 1/8 of all income; they don't pay much tax because they can barely make ends meet. Disposable income is up to over $3K per month on average in the US but over 70% have a disposable income below the average. Everything is crazy top heavy. Comparing total income of large groups would have a lot more meaning if you subtract what it takes to get by from those totals.
So half the wage earners have to share less than 1/8 of all income; they don't pay much tax because they can barely make ends meet. Disposable income is up to over $3K per month on average in the US but over 70% have a disposable income below the average. Everything is crazy top heavy. Comparing total income of large groups would have a lot more meaning if you subtract what it takes to get by from those totals.
"barely make ends meet" and "what it takes to get by" is a bit subjective, no? Who makes that judgment when policy decisions are made? And, disposable income is measured by the amount left over after what expenses? And, are any of those base expenses variable based on decisions made by the individual?
how about we charge every one who works and pays no income taxes 25 bucks bucks for living in this country .
they blow more then that on lottery tickets , beer and cell phones .
channel it all to social security . it may not solve the issue but it helps .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
