Elimination of The Payroll Tax

Cypress said:
Do all working poor have kids?
Does the EIC only apply to people below the poverty line?


No.

No one has showed me any math, that shows when you account for ALL taxes and fees at the federal, state, and local level that they get back more than they pay in, on average.
Click to expand...
No, they do not. However I notice how you ignored the fact that when I was poor I received a "Return" on a tax I didn't pay. It was even a nice hefty one and that was long before I had children.

You are being deliberately obtuse if you miss that reference and zero in on just children...
 
Cypress said:
Do all working poor have kids?
Does the EIC only apply to people below the poverty line?


No.

No one has showed me any math, that shows when you account for ALL taxes and fees at the federal, state, and local level that they get back more than they pay in, on average.
Click to expand...
Oh, I wouldn't say they get more back than they pay, hence the word "almost" in my previous post. Man, you really are desperate to attempt to say that they are still regressive after their return nearly pays them back...

It becomes far less regressive because of that, it is why I mention it.
 
Damocles said:
No, they do not. However I notice how you ignored the fact that when I was poor I received a "Return" on a tax I didn't pay. It was even a nice hefty one and that was long before I had children.

You are being deliberately obtuse if you miss that reference and zero in on just children...
Click to expand...


I guess we will continue to debate in the theorectical.


No one appears to have a credible study, which crunches the math and accounts for all taxes and fees, to support the proposition that the working poor get back more than they pay in.


I guess we're stuck with "gut level" feelings on this. Considering the lack of any empirical data, your gut feelings or mine are unsatisfactory.
 
Cypress said:
I guess we will continue to debate in the theorectical.


No one appears to have a credible study, which crunches the math and accounts for all taxes and fees, to support the proposition that the working poor get back more than they pay in.


I guess we're stuck with "gut level" feelings on this. Considering the lack of any empirical data, your gut feelings or mine are unsatisfactory.
Click to expand...
Once again you throw up the strawman, 'more than they pay in' after I specifically mentioned it too!

There was a reason that I used "nearly" and "almost", because they do not get all that they pay in back, just more than they pay in SSI.
 
Damocles said:
Once again you throw up the strawman, 'more than they pay in' after I specifically mentioned it too!

There was a reason that I used "nearly" and "almost", because they do not get all that they pay in back, just more than they pay in SSI.
Click to expand...


Fair enough.

But when you say "nearly" or "almost", those should be quantifiable statements, backed up by empirical evidence.

I won't venture a gut level feeling on what the answer is. There are a lot of taxes and fees out there, that the working poor pay. I suspect that they pay more in, than they get back on a federal tax credit or EIC, but I can't prove it.
 
I'm working on personal experience. I made barely any money as an E-1 in the Navy. Yet I got back more than I paid... I got back more than I paid when I worked at the local Amusement Park, and at McDonald's... There seems to be a pattern. Although I had to pay tax at the gas pump, more than I paid in meant that some of that was offset... I know I was getting Credits that I don't get now... It seems that I am able to draw on that experience to bring some understanding of how I was somewhat compensated for the fact that I was poor.
 
My only fear is they would implement a federal sales tax under the guise of eliminating payroll tax deductions, only somehow weasel their way around eliminating the payroll tax and we'd be stuck with FITs and VAT.

If the system ensured that the poor were not over taxed I could be convinced of a sales tax in place of income taxes.
 
Cypress said:
Uh, no this thread wasn't about the Federal income tax. While I didn't read every single post, I assumed the debate was about the payroll FICA tax. That's not income tax.

The title of the threat was about the payroll tax. FICA.

The working poor pay a FICA tax. As I stated in my first post.
Click to expand...


Payroll taxes are state and federal taxes ...which would also include FICA ... since Al Gore is the person who made the suggestion.. one would assume he is speaking on behalf of the federal Government which means he is probably talking about Federal Income Taxes that are withheld from an employees check.... there is the possibility that he is also referring to SS.

The working poor do pay a FICA ...but as Damo says..they will get much more in return. In many cases.., Tax Credits such as EIC and Child Care ..... often yield a larger return than what they actually pay in Fed Taxes. State and Sales Tax is another issue all together.
 
I think we should tax less on income and make up for it with consumption and inhertance taxes.
 
Jarod said:
I think we should tax less on income and make up for it with consumption and inhertance taxes.
Click to expand...

I think either or. I don't trust the federal gov't with the power to do both. As a matter of fact, I'm much more confortable with a consumption tax. The less they need to know about you, the better.
 
The government needs money to exist, war in Iraq costs money. Protecting ourselves from Domestic terrorists costs money.

Given that there must be a tax, whats the most fair and least obtrusive way for the government to get that money...

Income tax is about the least fair, because it takes money from those who work hard, and it takes money from those who are the most profitable to our society.

Now, consumption tax is good because it takes money from those who use the services the most. If you buy meat at the grocery you are benefiting from the money spent on the FDA. If you drive a car on the street you are benefiting from money spent on roads and safety and such. You are costing those who spend, not necessarly those who earn!

Inheritance tax is still better than income tax because you are not taxing those who are working hard or those who earned it, you are just limiting an indiviual's control of his wealth after his death. To me that is MUCH more fair than limiting control of a living person's wealth.
 
With the current system, a person (who inhereted tuns of money from his parents, who got it from there parents, who got if from there parents X5, who got it by raiding some poor village 500 years ago...) and never earned a dime in his life could be one of the largest users of governmetal services while still not paying as much as the poor schlub who works his fingers to the bone and uses less services.
 
Damocles said:
I'm working on personal experience. I made barely any money as an E-1 in the Navy. Yet I got back more than I paid... I got back more than I paid when I worked at the local Amusement Park, and at McDonald's... There seems to be a pattern. Although I had to pay tax at the gas pump, more than I paid in meant that some of that was offset... I know I was getting Credits that I don't get now... It seems that I am able to draw on that experience to bring some understanding of how I was somewhat compensated for the fact that I was poor.
Click to expand...

gosh, things have changed since I was younger....?

At ALL OF my low paying jobs, under 10 k a year jobs, I NEVER GOT ANY KIND OF earned income credit WHAT SO EVER.....

Is this some credit that those with CHILDREN qualify for....? or, because it was 25 years ago....(ugh, can't believe I am this old :()....and they did not have any earned income credit back then?

care
 
And why should people with children pay less taxes anyway ? they put the bigger burden on our society than those without children but pay less taxes....
 
uscitizen said:
And why should people with children pay less taxes anyway ? they put the bigger burden on our society than those without children but pay less taxes....
Click to expand...
It is to incentivize the family... Without the kids how would you ever get even one payment of your Social Security?
 
uscitizen said:
So child care deductions are hidden SS payments ?
Who under the age of 55 expects to get any SS anyway ?
Click to expand...
No, but they are future earners who will pay for your SS. Are you deliberately missing the fact that they will earn the money you draw? That at one point you were the kid that was going to become the earner for the nation? That the future is something that we have chosen to invest in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top