Redistributive tax. was Re: What IF We Abolished the IRS?
Bruce A. Martin
>In article <1992Mar6.0...@nuscc.nus.sg>, ip...@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes...
>>
>>
> > While Deomcrats and Republicans argue over what kind of tax cuts to offer
> > in an election year, [Libertarian Presidential candidate Andre] Marrou
> > argues for abolishing the income tax and the IRS along with it. He is
> >...
>...
>
>Social security is a lot more regressive than income taxes, and I'm sure
^^^^^^^^^^
W R O N G ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
If social security payments were a "tax", they would be an example
of a "flat" tax (at least up to 55K or so).
But, the purpose of my posting is to correct a misuse of terminology.
-=o=-
A "progressive" tax takes more money from person A than from person B
because person A has a greater income than person B,
even tho he receives no additional benefits from government).
(Incidentally, the concept of "progressive" taxation, was promoted by
Marx and Engels as a principal mechanism for destruction of economic liberty,
but never mind all that.)
A "flat" tax also takes MORE money from an individual because
his income is higher. A flat tax takes PROPORTIONATELY
higher amounts from individuals with higher income.
In this sense, even a flat tax is "progressive".
A typical "progressive" tax, however, not only takes more money
from some than from others, but does so DISPROPORTIONATELY,
by taking a higher PERCENTAGE of income.
A "uniform" tax would take the same amount of money from
all citizens, regardless of income.
A truly "regressive" tax would take MORE money from poorer people
and LESS money from richer people.
(BTW- Per-capita deductions or the exclusion of certain "subsitance"
items from taxation does not change any of this.)
IRS tax brackets are "progressive".
Sales taxes are "flat"; property taxes are more-or-less "flat".
License fees are "uniform".
I know of no example of a truly "regressive" tax (other than in Feudal eras).
Lately, there has been an unfortunate escalation of propagandistic Newspeak and
rhetoric: The term "regressive" has been used more and more to describe tax
schemes which are merely less-disproportionate than the speaker desires.
If one allows such misuse of the terms "progressive" and "regressive" to go
unchallenged, then any arguments are defeated by language before they are voiced.
Just because we'd all abhor a truly "regressive" tax (i.e. where the poor paid
more), it does NOT follow that "progressive" is necessarily something good.
Let's call these things what they really are!
The use of so-called "progressive" taxation to provide benefits for all is no
more than a mechanism for taking money and property from one person for the
benefit of another. Therefore, the proper term for such a scheme is:
REDISTIBUTIVE TAXATION
As a compromise, "progressively redistributive" would be a fair term for
the present tax brackets. Rostenkowski's (sp?) porposal is at best
"increasingly redistributionist". (So was Bushlips' tax hike.)
On the premise that some government services provide more benefits to those
with more property, a flat tax might be an example of PROPORIONATE TAXATION.
(I dispute the premise. It's still redistributive!)
Whether or not you accept my suggested terminology ("redistributive",
"proportionate", etc.), *please* reconsider your use and acceptance of the
term "progressive".
Progress toward what?
No, thanks. I'd rather "regress" toward liberty!
BAM /|\Master of the Tripods of Haephestus./|\ -/s/- Bruce A. Martin
~~~ [NOTE: Since my opinions are my property,] Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
~o~ [they neither belong to nor represent my ] 911C / Brookhaven National Lab.
/|\ [employer, its customer, nor anyone else!] Upton, NY 11973 (516) 282-5647
# include discaimers.h /***** Marrou/Lord in '92 *****/
# delete BUSHLIPS /***** CALL 800-682-1776 *****/
Bruce A. Martin
>In article <1992Mar6.0...@nuscc.nus.sg>, ip...@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes...
>>
>>
> > While Deomcrats and Republicans argue over what kind of tax cuts to offer
> > in an election year, [Libertarian Presidential candidate Andre] Marrou
> > argues for abolishing the income tax and the IRS along with it. He is
> >...
>...
>
>Social security is a lot more regressive than income taxes, and I'm sure
^^^^^^^^^^
Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
If social security payments were a "tax", they would be an example
of a "flat" tax (at least up to 55K or so).
But, the purpose of my posting is to correct a misuse of terminology.
-=o=-
A "progressive" tax takes more money from person A than from person B
because person A has a greater income than person B,
even tho he receives no additional benefits from government).
(Incidentally, the concept of "progressive" taxation, was promoted by
Marx and Engels as a principal mechanism for destruction of economic liberty,
and "progress" toward the "historically inevitable triumph" of socialism".
But never mind all that.)
REDISTIBUTIVE TAXATION
non-descriptive term "progressive".
Progress toward what?
No, thanks. I'd rather "regress" toward liberty!
BAM -/s/- Bruce A. Martin /|\Master of the Tripods of Haephestus./|\
[My opinions are my property, belong to me only, and represent no one else!]
Thomas Grant Edwards
>Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
If Social Security is not a tax, then what is it? An
"involuntary contribution organized by the government?"
-Tom
Ted Frank
>
>Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
>If social security payments were a "tax", they would be an example
>of a "flat" tax (at least up to 55K or so).
>
> and LESS money from richer people.
Which is what Social Security does. Therefore it's regressive. QED.
>IRS tax brackets are "progressive".
>Sales taxes are "flat"; property taxes are more-or-less "flat".
Sales taxes are not flat.
>I know of no example of a truly "regressive" tax (other than in Feudal eras).
Sales taxes and social security taxes, maybe?
Your post is an interesting demonstration of Newspeak.
--
Ted Frank + "I think Pat Buchanan sounds more like me every day."
1307 E 60 St, #109 + "There are different Klans, just like there are different
U o' C Law Skool + fraternities in college."
Chi, IL 60637 + -- David Duke
Nosy
<In article <1992Mar12.2...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
<>
<>Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
Try not paying it...it's a tax.
<>If social security payments were a "tax", they would be an example
<>of a "flat" tax (at least up to 55K or so).
<>
<> A truly "regressive" tax would take MORE money from poorer people
<> and LESS money from richer people.
< Which is what Social Security does. Therefore it's regressive. QED.
Mr. Frank, what is 7.51% of $15,000? (HINT: $1,126.50)
What is 7.51% of $55,000? (HINT: $4,130.50)
Which is the larger number, 1,126.5 or 4,130.5?
<>IRS tax brackets are "progressive".
<>Sales taxes are "flat"; property taxes are more-or-less "flat".
<Sales taxes are not flat.
No? 8% of a purchase is 8%, whether it is $1 or $1,000.
Now it is true that those of modest means can afford
that 8% much less than the "rich", which makes sales
taxes more unpleasant for those of modest means...perhaps
that is Mr. Frank's definition of "regressive".
However, sales taxes are still flat taxes; the percentage
neither increases nor decreases with purchase amount.
<>I know of no example of a truly "regressive" tax (other than in Feudal eras).
< Sales taxes and social security taxes, maybe?
< Your post is an interesting demonstration of Newspeak.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to post your definition
of "flat tax"?
Marc VanHeyningen
><In article <1992Mar16.0...@midway.uchicago.edu> th...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
><In article <1992Mar12.2...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
><>
><>Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
>
> Try not paying it...it's a tax.
This is true.
><>If social security payments were a "tax", they would be an example
><>of a "flat" tax (at least up to 55K or so).
><>
><> A truly "regressive" tax would take MORE money from poorer people
><> and LESS money from richer people.
>
>< Which is what Social Security does. Therefore it's regressive. QED.
>
> Mr. Frank, what is 7.51% of $15,000? (HINT: $1,126.50)
>
> What is 7.51% of $55,000? (HINT: $4,130.50)
>
> Which is the larger number, 1,126.5 or 4,130.5?
Right answer. Wrong question.
Right question: Which is the larger number, 7.51 or 7.51?
><>IRS tax brackets are "progressive".
><>Sales taxes are "flat"; property taxes are more-or-less "flat".
>
><Sales taxes are not flat.
>
> No? 8% of a purchase is 8%, whether it is $1 or $1,000.
>
> Now it is true that those of modest means can afford
> that 8% much less than the "rich", which makes sales
> taxes more unpleasant for those of modest means...perhaps
> that is Mr. Frank's definition of "regressive".
>
> However, sales taxes are still flat taxes; the percentage
> neither increases nor decreases with purchase amount.
>
><>I know of no example of a truly "regressive" tax (other than in Feudal eras).
>
>< Sales taxes and social security taxes, maybe?
>< Your post is an interesting demonstration of Newspeak.
>
> Perhaps you would be so kind as to post your definition
> of "flat tax"?
Well, there are three different ways of figuring tax burden:
a) Absoulte dollars paid
b) Dollars paid as a portion of gross income
c) Dollars paid as a portion of "disposable" income
Most discourse tends to use definition b). If a politician proposes
a "flat tax" system she means a system where everybody pays m% of his
income in taxes; i.e. only one income tax bracket.
She almost certainly does not mean a system where street people and
millionares both pay $N of taxes; I can't imagine that anyone would
support that (except many libertarians, who argue that N should equal 0,
but that's another matter.)
There do, of course, exist people with some political axe to grind on
one side of the fence or the other who will start using definition a)
or c) (usually without explicitly mentioning that they are defining
their own terms in ways which aren't generally accepted, of course.)
FICA tax is regressive because someone earning about $50,000 pays almost
twice as high a portion of his income to this tax as someone making
about $100,000.
Sales taxes tend to be regressive because poorer people tend to spend
more of their money (on the necessities of life, which, other than
housing, tend to be taxed) than wealthy people do. Sales taxes which
exempt things like food are less problematic.
The place it gets confusing is that many people just use "flat" as a
catchword for "fair", when they mean different things.
Now, would you really argue that a system which charges a street person
with no income $999 in taxes and charges a millionare $1,000 in taxes is
"progressive"? Would it be more "fair" to raise the street person's tax
to $1,000 to make the tax "flat" by definition a?
--
_ _ Marc VanHeyningen mvan...@indiana.edu mvan...@iubacs.BITNET
/ / \ mputer-\ Your health care choices:
| | | oky Science immediate access, limited costs, high-tech medicine
\_ \_/ gnitive/ Pick any two.
Ron Dippold
>FICA tax is regressive because someone earning about $50,000 pays almost
>twice as high a portion of his income to this tax as someone making
>about $100,000.
Look at the other end - the payback. Both of these people supposedly
will receive the same payments back. The $100000 a year guy is
paying more for the same return.
This assumes, of course, that the FICA tax is just the government
being paternalistic and saving your money for you so that you get it
back as retirement income. If you look at is as it is really used -
just another cash cow for government waste, then you've got a point.
You can always make it look progressive or regressive with another
method, unless you actually make the person with less money pay more
real dollars.
>Now, would you really argue that a system which charges a street person
>with no income $999 in taxes and charges a millionare $1,000 in taxes is
>"progressive"? Would it be more "fair" to raise the street person's tax
>to $1,000 to make the tax "flat" by definition a?
You can't make a tax fair. Lower both their taxes.
--
Joan Rivers has a very effective form of birth control. Nudity.
Scott Cromar
> Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
> If social security payments were a "tax", they would be an example
> of a "flat" tax (at least up to 55K or so).
I'll let you explain the "it is not a tax" bit a little more. You
left me in the dust on that one. I don't know anyone who seriously
believes the "they're investing the trust fund in savings bonds"
gimmick.
As for the insistence that it is not "regressive," why don't you try
calculating the percentage of income that is paid by someone making
$25,000 and someone making $75,000? I'm sure it will be instructive.
(Hint: the person making more pays a lower percentage of income as
Social Security tax.)
About a year ago I posted a rather lengthy analysis showing that even
after you calculate in benefits received, the Social Security tax is
regressive. I don't have it on file, and I don't feel like recreating
it, but I won't be convinced by simple assertions to the contrary.
--Scott
Mr. Grinch
>In article <6MAR1992...@venus.tamu.edu> gmw...@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>Social security is a lot more regressive than income taxes, and I'm sure
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>W H O A ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
>
>Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
>If social security payments were a "tax", they would be an example
>of a "flat" tax (at least up to 55K or so).
>
I realize other people have rersponded to this note adequately, but I feel
like beating a dead horse a little more. Social Security taxes the poor
at a higher % rate than the rich for several reasons:
1) Social Security only taxes wages, not dividends or interest
2) Social Security starts taxing with the first dollar you earned and has a
cap.
3) People that get a job straight out of high school (who will generally be
poor) start payinmg SS much sooner than those of us that go to 4 years
undergrad and 10 years of grad school.
Conversely, the higher classes tend to get more out of social security,
since they tend to retire earlier and live longer.
Mr. Grinch
Paul Barton-Davis
>mvan...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Marc VanHeyningen) writes:
>>FICA tax is regressive because someone earning about $50,000 pays almost
>>twice as high a portion of his income to this tax as someone making
>>about $100,000.
>
>Look at the other end - the payback. Both of these people supposedly
>will receive the same payments back. The $100000 a year guy is
>paying more for the same return.
What is it that he does that enables her to earn the $100,000 in the
first place ? The renumeration she receives for labor is a function of
expectation within the social context in which he works. She couldn't
earn that much without the infrastructure that makes her education,
transportation, marketplace, communication and leisure possible - and
she pays for those in a way that still leaves her more after-tax
income than someone earning $50K.
If you start with the assumption that all economic activity is somehow
innate in each individual, then sure, all taxes are unfair. If you
recognise that the collaborative effort that makes contemporary
economic activities possible is just that: collaborative, then taxes
are simply the means of paying for the possibility of your own
success.
-- paul
--
Computer Science Laboratory "truth is out of style" - MC 900ft Jesus
University of Washington <pa...@cs.washington.edu>
Bruce A. Martin
>In article <1992Mar12.2...@bnlux1.bnl.gov> b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>
>>Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
>>If social security payments were a "tax", they would be an example
>>of a "flat" tax (at least up to 55K or so).
>>
>> and LESS money from richer people.
>
>Which is what Social Security does. Therefore it's regressive. QED.
How, pray tell, does Social Security take MORE money from poorer people????
Of course, the $8000 which FICA grabs (from the compensation that was earned
from one's employer) is a higher PERCENTAGE of a lower-salaried person's income,
but that's not the point! I said "more money" not "proportionately more money".
The $1.50 that McDonald's charges for a Big Mac is a much higher proportion
of a poor person's income, too. Does that make McDonald's guilty of
"regressive" pricing? Aren't all prices "regressive" by your definition?
(Of course, that is precisely why the term was originally introduced -- to
disable price as an economic "signal", Ah, but that's another history lesson.)
Should all commodities be priced as a portion of income rather than in dollars?
(If so, who would want to sell to us peons??)
Furthermore, Social Security was designed as insurance. Perhaps it has since
evolved into a tax, but it was intended to be a form of INSURANCE. Unlike
real insurance, people with higher incomes not only pay higher FICA "premiums",
but they also receive less benefit in return for those premiums.
In terms of *net* cost, even Social Security is disproportionately "progressive",
i.e. redistributionist. It is not even "flat"! In no sense is it "regressive"!
>
>>IRS tax brackets are "progressive".
>>Sales taxes are "flat"; property taxes are more-or-less "flat".
>
>Sales taxes are not flat.
Oh? In what state is the sales tax set at a higher percentage for the poor?!
In what state does the sales tax take more money from a poor person than it
does from a richer person? (In fact, most states exempt various items that
make up a greater portion of low-income spending, so that even the sales tax
is somewhat redistributive. In that sense, they are actually less than flat.)
>
>>I know of no example of a truly "regressive" tax (other than in Feudal eras).
>
>Sales taxes and social security taxes, maybe?
Nope. See above.
>Your post is an interesting demonstration of Newspeak.
Hmmmm, interesting tactic.
I protest misuse of language and point out that the word "progressive" is an
example of Newspeak (and even provide a little history of its Marxist origin).
Then, instead of defending the terminology, you describe my protest as Newspeak.
The basic point is this: the term "progressive", along with other Newspeak
has been used to promote subtly the notion that taxation should be
transformed into a mechanism whose purpose is to redistribute income, and
that the more redistributive it is the better. The only result which would
satisfy advocates of "progressive" taxation is one which "progressed" to a
point where differences in income were rendered virtually meaningless.
I only ask that they be more open about this, rather than hiding behind
misleading words such as "progressive".
>--
>Ted Frank
BAM /|\Master of the Tripods of Haephestus./|\ -/s/- Bruce A. Martin
Ron Dippold
>In article <rdippold.700739303@cancun> rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>Look at the other end - the payback. Both of these people supposedly
>>will receive the same payments back. The $100000 a year guy is
>>paying more for the same return.
>What is it that he does that enables her to earn the $100,000 in the
>first place ? The renumeration she receives for labor is a function of
>expectation within the social context in which he works. She couldn't
>earn that much without the infrastructure that makes her education,
Oh come on, this is always the last and most desparate fallback as a
justification for taxes. You impose services that they don't want or
could provide better for themselves and charge them for it, then claim
that they wouldn't have been able to do anything without those
services they didn't need or want, and then claim that this entitles
you to take as much of their income as you want. They'd be making
even more money if it wasn't for government acting as a continuous
heavy brake on the economy. Even more ridiculous is trying to claim
this infrastructure crap for social security.
--
Head like a hole, black as your soul, I'd rather die than give you control.
Dave Polewka
In a previous article, rdip...@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) says:
>Oh come on, this is always the last and most desparate fallback as a
>justification for taxes. You impose services that they don't want or
>could provide better for themselves and charge them for it, then claim
>that they wouldn't have been able to do anything without those
>services they didn't need or want, and then claim that this entitles
>you to take as much of their income as you want. They'd be making
>even more money if it wasn't for government acting as a continuous
>heavy brake on the economy. Even more ridiculous is trying to claim
>this infrastructure crap for social security.
Like other addicts, statists are ego-tripping master manipulators
and con-artists, who show tremendous ingenuity and resourcefulness
in maintaining and protecting their supply. Addicts are people who
have good intentions, but keep getting into the same kinds of trouble,
even though they don't want to, and yet STILL think they're in control.
They can't see the connection between their use and the negative
consequences. So they can only blame their problems on any convenient
target. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ADDICTION, YOU'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND
POLITICS!!
--
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Foxvog Douglas
>In article <6MAR1992...@venus.tamu.edu> gmw...@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes:
>>Social security is a lot more regressive than income taxes, and I'm sure
>W R O N G ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
>Social security is NOT "regressive". It is also not a tax.
>If social security payments were a "tax", they would be an example
>of a "flat" tax (at least up to 55K or so).
It is flat up to that limit, after which it is regressive, which is
understood to mean that those with a higher income pay proportionally
less.
>But, the purpose of my posting is to correct a misuse of terminology.
Same here.
>A "progressive" tax takes more money from person A than from person B
>because person A has a greater income than person B,
>even tho he receives no additional benefits from government).
It takes a higher proportion of the tax from A who has the higher income.
> A "flat" tax also takes MORE money from an individual because
> his income is higher. A flat tax takes PROPORTIONATELY
> higher amounts from individuals with higher income.
> In this sense, even a flat tax is "progressive".
Proportionally higher amounts, which means an equal proportion (%age).
But a progressive tax takes a higher proportion (%age) from the one with
higher income, so this is not progressive.
> A typical "progressive" tax, however, not only takes more money
> from some than from others, but does so DISPROPORTIONATELY,
> by taking a higher PERCENTAGE of income.
Exactly. (as long as you leave out the word "typical")
> A "uniform" tax would take the same amount of money from
> all citizens, regardless of income.
> A truly "regressive" tax would take MORE money from poorer people
> and LESS money from richer people.
The normal defintion for a regressive tax is one which takes a lower
percentage from those earning more. This includes your "uniform" tax
listed above. SS tax is regressive above the limit, because it is then
"uniform".
>IRS tax brackets are "progressive".
Not much any more as there are but 3 categories. Once one is in the
third category the tax on additional income is flat and not progressive.
>Sales taxes are "flat"; property taxes are more-or-less "flat".
>License fees are "uniform".
>I know of no example of a truly "regressive" tax (other than in Feudal eras).
Under your newly redefined term.
>Lately, there has been an unfortunate escalation of propagandistic Newspeak and
>rhetoric: The term "regressive" has been used more and more to describe tax
>schemes which are merely less-disproportionate than the speaker desires.
>If one allows such misuse of the terms "progressive" and "regressive" to go
>unchallenged, then any arguments are defeated by language before they are
>voiced.
This misuse of terminology is exactly what you are attempting to spread.
>Just because we'd all abhor a truly "regressive" tax (i.e. where the poor paid
>more), it does NOT follow that "progressive" is necessarily something good.
>Let's call these things what they really are!
Yes, and not use your NEW IMPROVED definitions.
>The use of so-called "progressive" taxation to provide benefits for all is no
>more than a mechanism for taking money and property from one person for the
>benefit of another. Therefore, the proper term for such a scheme is:
> REDISTIBUTIVE TAXATION
But this is the case for all taxation.
>As a compromise, "progressively redistributive" would be a fair term for
>the present tax brackets. Rostenkowski's (sp?) porposal is at best
>"increasingly redistributionist". (So was Bushlips' tax hike.)
>On the premise that some government services provide more benefits to those
>with more property, a flat tax might be an example of PROPORIONATE TAXATION.
>(I dispute the premise. It's still redistributive!)
So you agree that all taxes are redistributive, so why use the term? [I
know, as a lable to belittle something you don't like.]
>Whether or not you accept my suggested terminology ("redistributive",
>"proportionate", etc.), *please* reconsider your use and acceptance of the
>term "progressive".
>Progress toward what?
Progressive taxation is "progressive" because with higher incomes there
are progressively greater tax rates. I guess your problem is the
etymology. The term is descriptive, not political. Would you find
eating a "liberal serving of [favorite dessert]" to be politically
incorrect?
>No, thanks. I'd rather "regress" toward liberty!
Then stop earning money. You will not be taxed, so you will be freer
[according to the logic you presented].
>BAM /|\Master of the Tripods of Haephestus./|\ -/s/- Bruce A. Martin
>~~~ [NOTE: Since my opinions are my property,] Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider
>~o~ [they neither belong to nor represent my ] 911C / Brookhaven National Lab.
>/|\ [employer, its customer, nor anyone else!] Upton, NY 11973 (516) 282-5647
BTW, if your .sig extends to column 80 it screws up when someone
responds to you.
doug foxvog
d...@tko.vtt.fi
Adam R. Grossman
Date: 12 Mar 92 20:19:23 GMT
Social security is... not a tax.
By the most common meanings of the words, SS is a federal income tax:
- FEDERAL because it is collected by and paid to the federal government.
- INCOME because it is proportional to income (up to a limit).
- TAX because you have to pay it.
[A median wage earner in the US has her income taxed at a 28 + 15 + 5 = 48
percent marginal rate. Count it all!]
--
Adam R. Grossman
a...@bitstream.com
Scott Cromar
> I said "more money" not "proportionately more money".
If you want to talk about taxation, the accepted terminology
("progressive," "flat" and "regressive") refer to percentages of
income, not amounts. If you expect the rest of us to understand what
you're talking about, you should use the accepted terminology.
(btw, "progressive" refers to the way that the tax rate (aka
percentage) progresses or increases as income increases. Similarly,
"regressive" refers to the way that the tax rate regresses or
decreases as income decreases.)
> Furthermore, Social Security was designed as insurance. Perhaps it has since
> evolved into a tax, but it was intended to be a form of INSURANCE.
I don't think that Social Security was ever intended to be anything
other than an income transfer program from the young to the old. I am
aware that it was marketed as a pension fund, but it has never been
run that way. I have long since learned that you should examine what
politicians DO, not what they SAY.
> Unlike
> real insurance, people with higher incomes not only pay higher FICA "premiums",
> but they also receive less benefit in return for those premiums.
As has previously been pointed out, wealthier people retire earlier
and live longer than their poorer neighbors. You'll have to explain
the "less benefit" thing.
> In terms of *net* cost, even Social Security is disproportionately "progressive",
> i.e. redistributionist. It is not even "flat"! In no sense is it "regressive"!
I'd love to see your numbers on this assertion. Why don't you work
them out and post them for us?
> The basic point is this: the term "progressive", along with other Newspeak
> has been used to promote subtly the notion that taxation should be
> transformed into a mechanism whose purpose is to redistribute income
I'll agree that the terminology has been used in this way, but
> , and
> that the more redistributive it is the better. The only result which would
> satisfy advocates of "progressive" taxation is one which "progressed" to a
> point where differences in income were rendered virtually meaningless.
I'm not aware of anyone who has used the words in this way. Perhaps
you can point out some references in the mainstream media?
--Scott
Scott Cromar
> Like other addicts, statists are ego-tripping master manipulators
> and con-artists, who show tremendous ingenuity and resourcefulness
> in maintaining and protecting their supply.
I'm not an anarchist, so I must be a statist. Just out of curiosity,
what sort of power am I exerting over you? In what way am I more
empowered than you are? And, in the absence of a state, why should I
believe that other people will not band together to restrict my
freedom of action more than a constitutional state would?
--Scott
Larry Weeks
>b...@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>> Social security is... not a tax.
>
> By the most common meanings of the words, SS is a federal income tax:
Not to mention that if it isn't a tax, then I don't have to pay it.
Congress may "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" as
well as "borrow money on the credit of the United States." Those are
the only methods the federal government can use to get money from us.
Therefore, if I MUST pay SS, it is a tax or impost.
Larry
--
Larry Weeks | "When Congress is in session, no man's pocketbook
d...@ecn.purdue.edu | is safe." -- Mark Twain
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one
tenth part..." -- Benjamin Franklin
OlsonDL
} What is it that he does that enables her to earn the $100,000 in the
} first place ? The renumeration she receives for labor is a function of
} expectation within the social context in which he works. She couldn't
} earn that much without the infrastructure that makes her education,
} transportation, marketplace, communication and leisure possible
}
} innate in each individual, then sure, all taxes are unfair. If you
} recognise that the collaborative effort that makes contemporary
} economic activities possible is just that: collaborative, then taxes
} are simply the means of paying for the possibility of your own
} success.
It has been estimated that, on average when you include income taxes,
sales taxes, property taxes, etc, people pay an average of about 40%
of their income in taxes.
I develop software for Bell Labs for a living. If what you say is true,
then 40% of my income is due to other people's efforts, rather than my
own. So Bell Labs is paying me 60% of my income to develop software,
plus another 40% for my *not* developing software.
If I get 40% of my income for not developing software, shouldn't I also
be getting:
40% of a doctor's income for not practicing medicine.
40% of George Bush's income for not being President of the US.
40% of Placido Domingo's income for not singing opera.
40% of John Elway's income for not being the Denver Bronco's quarterback.
etc...
Absurd.
--
David Olson ...!att!druwa!dlo
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they
can bribe the people with their own money." Alexis de Tocqueville
Dave Polewka
I misused the word "statist". I meant politicians, in general.
Sorry about that, chief.