Why do governments get into debt?

The nation has no income. Personal income is not a communal resource that everyone should get a piece of. It's a measure of individual contribution.


​

 

Please identify the current legislation or law or policy that 'redistributes wealth to the 1%'?

Also, please tell us what percentage of federal income taxes are paid by those evil 1%?

Lastly and just curious...if those evil 1% pay >85% of the federal income taxes, how can that possibly be a redistribution of wealth ALL of which you claim only trickles up?[/QUOTE]

Tax laws that redistribute wealth to the 1%. Reduction in capital gain rate. Lowering of top income tax rates. Reduction in food stamps program. Increase in estate tax exemption. Special tax laws for hedge funds.Etc.

 

That's not unlike a samaritan giving a beggar $2 each week. Then the beggar insisting on $4 because he wants to spend more and claiming the samaritan stole a dollar from him by providing only $3.

Government redistribution of wealth goes only one way: out of the hands of the folks who are making a net contribution to this country and into the hands of those who are enjoying equal services, rights and freedoms the country provides without paying equally for them.



​

 

So If I understand your position anyone who works a full time job but still make so little that they qualify for government assistance is not making a net contribution to society. This would include a lot of service workers and military families and just about anyone else who earns less than three times the poverty level. I assume you also include anyone on Medicad, Medicare, and Social Security sine they are receiving more then they are currently contributing.

 

Contribution is not about effort, it's about result. If you work full time, every day, combing your hair. You're not contributing. The guy who asks you if you want fries with that, in net, isn't contributing either.

Is it reasonable that we offer charity to folks who, due to bad choices or bad luck, face hardship? Sure. Should the guy who paid into social security be able to take the benefits he paid for? Absolutely.

Doesn't matter. It's still dishonest to suggest the guy who offers nothing more than flipping burgers is distributing wealth to the 1%. Even if the government is collecting a higher percentage of his $250 paycheck, than they take from the guy who's actually paying for the equal services and rights we all enjoy.



​

 

FICA taxes are based on a percentage of pay...there is no 100% rate?

FICA taxes are paid because this allows the person to acquire Social Security and Medicare. I guess you're saying people should get SS and Medicare for free?

Nothing you mention is a policy or law to redistribute wealth to the 1%.

I asked about federal income taxes...not federal taxes. How much does the 1% pay of federal income taxes?

Investment taxes or capital gains taxes apply equally to all Americans...they do not favor the rich.

Estate taxes apply to all Americans.

Nothing you have mentioned is a policy or law or legislation to redistribute wealth from anyone! Nothing in society prevents anyone from achieving whatever it is they have the potential to achieve. You present no root problem and certainly no workable solutions...just whining...

 

Tax laws that redistribute wealth to the 1%. Reduction in capital gain rate. Lowering of top income tax rates. Reduction in food stamps program. Increase in estate tax exemption. Special tax laws for hedge funds.Etc.[/QUOTE]

This is bunk! There are no tax laws that state the reason for the law is to redistribute money?

Capital gains rates apply to all taxpayers.

All income tax rates have been lowered and raised the same percentages.

Food stamps were 'expanded' and now they are being 'reduced' to where they were.

Estate taxes apply to all taxpayers.

All conspiracy comments to solve a problem which cannot be defined but politics give you and others the room to whine...

 

People pay 100% of the SS tax up to the statutory cap, currenlty around $113k. After that level of income, they pay -0-.. Someone making $40k pays 100% of the rate. Someone making $4 million pays 1% of the rate. Those with investment income pay -0-.

Rigged for the rich.

No, I'm saying they should pay based on what they earn. Not a person making $40k paying at a 100% rate and a person making $4 million paying at a 1% rate.

Sure it does. The raised the SS taxes the working poorer pay, and in part used the surplus money the working poorer paid into to offset income tax cuts that mostly benefited the richest.

The Sheriff of Nottingham would have been proud. Classic "trickle down" policy in action. Help the rich get richer. But it didn't trickle down.

I couldn't care less. Do your own homework. I'm interested in the amount of total taxes they pay, and they pay no more or less than the amount of the nation's income they take.

No, they only apply to Americans with investment income -- which are people who have investments). The rich are the ones who have bar far the bulk of investments. The 1% alone has 40% of the nation's wealth. This huge tax privilege (they only paid 15% for years, bumped up to 20% this year) allows the uber rich like Romney to pay a lower percent of his income in taxes than many middle class families.

Another great example of trickle down in action. And why the 1% have doubled their take of the nation's income and wealth over the past 40 years.

Nonsense. The estate tax only applies to estates worth millions. It doesn't apply to the vast majority of Americans. And it was reduced to -0- under "trickle down" theories, though reinstated this year.

Another great way to keep the nation's wealth with the wealthiest. Didn't "trickle down" though.

Everything I have mentioned is a policy or law that has redistributed a greater and greater portion of the nation's income and wealth to the 1%.

Jeez, I'd think you were a 1%er yourself they way you apologize for them. 40% of the nation's wealth not enough for you?

 

You get out what you pay in. The requirement to set money aside in social security exists to make sure folks have a minimum income when they retire. I don't see how it's rigged that we tell the guy who's paid in all he's likely to need to take out, that he's done for the year.

Especially if we tell the other guy's he fine after putting in only a third of that.




​

 

Taxes should be progressive. The middle classes have been gutted by "trickle down" and can't afford to pay them. The 1% now takes double the share of the nation's income (20% vs. 10%) and wealth (40% vs. 20%) and can. Our society gives people the chance to garner unimaginable fortunes. The quid pro quo is you contribute more in taxes.




​

[/QUOTE]

 

I'm not sure I agree that society endowed us with our freedom to earn a living. If it does protect that freedom — it does so equally. It's not giving anymore to Bob than Joe.

I can live with progressive taxes. By definition, they're not fair. But I can't see a way to pay this ridiculous bill our nation has run up without asking those who can pay more, to do so.

The nation doesn't have an income. The guy who's earning twice as much as the next guy isn't taking more out of a communal resource, he's contributing twice as much to the economy. That a minority in this nation is generating greater income each year doesn't mean they're being unfair, it means the rest of the nation is failing to keep up.


​

 

You confuse income with contribution, IMO. A guy living of his daddy's trust fund investments (at a special low tax rate) is not necessarily contributing much to the economy.

 

The guy who earned the money filling that trust fund made a huge contribution. Earned enough to not only to cover his expenses, but those of someone else as well. And made ongoing contributions in the form of investments. He chose to make his children beneficiaries of the debt still owed for those extraordinary contributions.

No, Junior is not paying his own way. Most parents gift their children. Some stop doing that sooner than others, but as long the bill get's paid how you shelter your kids isn't my business. Especially when most of this country can't even pay for their own lifestyle much less their children.

I agree we should move away from earned income as a basis for taxation. That seems unlikely to happen anytime soon though. I don't think we can move to a fair basis, until we massively reduce spending. And we're in a pretty big hole right now.


​

 

Maybe. His kid didn't.

What expenses?

Great. How does his son living off daddy's trust fund contribute to society?

Except you were just trying to justify the huge fortunes people have because of "contributions".

And have an investment/asset based tax instead? That's something I might agree with.​

 

There is zero reason to pay more for FICA?? FICA is not income tax or operating tax for the government; it is solely for funding SS and Medicare, etc. If you wish to collect more from higher income earners then adjust the SS payouts accordingly...instead of $1500/month give them $3000/month or $5000/month. Those who earn less pay less FICA and receive less SS...the system works just fine except for the government stealing the FICA monies. Rigged for the rich is a joke! Many wealthy people don't even accept SS or Medicare.

Increased SS tax rate applies equally to all Americans. There is a cap because there is a cap on the benefits. Your 'working poor' pay into FICA relative to what they will receive in benefits. FICA surplus goes into the general fund to be spent on anything.

You're being totally dishonest when you keep harping about money not trickling down?? When the wealthy spend their money everyone around them benefits from labor to materials to society. Are you going to tell me when someone builds a $5 million home that it just builds itself? That there's not a bunch of money that goes to local government, and to labor, and to materials? If this is what you believe then you are completely uninformed.

The wealthy don't take anything from anyone except in your fairy-tale mind. Anyone can provide products and services and the more consumption there is of those products and services the larger and more profitable a company becomes...you seem to think this is a crime? You seem to think that consumers do not benefit...that they are simply robbed?

80 million Americans hold public stock and bonds. Equally Americans have retirement/pension funds filled with capital gains instruments. Millions of Americans own homes which when sold are subject to capital gains taxes. All of this and I haven't even mentioned the wealthy. Go ahead and do the stupid action of raising capital gains and the FIRST thing you and others will whine about is getting exemptions from the taxes! Oh...and do you suppose all of this investment money benefits the nation and industry?

Gee golly whiz Iriemon...does it really sound logical to you that those who have achieved the most will be rewarded the most while those who succeed less will be rewarded less? Those who start companies, invest, take risks, work hard and smart, and succeed in your eyes need to be knocked down a few notches...you'll show them!

Estate taxes effect people even when they're not wealthy. I live a good life but I'm not wealthy yet the farm property I own is worth millions and will be subject to estate taxes. Don't know about FL but in CA many of our homes have appreciated and today are worth millions. No matter, IMO the estate tax is a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*) since all of the estate assets, minus the capital growth, were acquired with cash which already had taxes withheld.

I'm not apologizing for anyone. Everyone is entitled to achieve their full potential...one person will achieve hobo status while another person achieves wealth status. Yet in your world you wish to punish those who achieve wealth and reward those who didn't...is that the way you raised your children...

 

Your very imaginary guy won't be doing much living unless he is spending! If he is spending then he is energizing the economy...great for him. And who do you suppose benefits the most from his spending...everyone who provides labor and materials and services. And how can this happen...the spending trickles down...no (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

The justification of a families fortune is evident in that people chose to put each dollar of that fortune into the families hands. That they have a right to make that choice is the justification.

The son isn't contributing as much to society as his father did. The father contributed enough for both, and more. The proof of that is that neither could spend the wealth the family was paid for those contributions in two lifetimes. And you shouldn't have a problem with that. Neither you nor I object to one person paying another's way.

Where we seem to differ is the suggestion that a father voluntarily paying his children's debts must somehow entitle his neighbor to the same charity. I disagree.


​

 

That is your opinion. But the claim you made was they had that income because of their contributions. I gave you an example where that was not so. And we haven't even talked about income derived from ownership or leveraging the efforts of underpaid workers.

So what. The father is dead. The son is contributing nothing. So much for your claim that " The guy who's earning twice as much as the next guy isn't taking more out of a communal resource, he's contributing twice as much to the economy." Simply not necessarily true.

I said nothing of the sort either way. I've pointed out that your assertion that " The guy who's earning twice as much as the next guy isn't taking more out of a communal resource, he's contributing twice as much to the economy" is incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on how much he's spending. But he's not contributing anything productive to society.

 

That a worker is underpaid is your opinion. That an investment is a contribution is not.



​

 

The guy who's earning twice as much as the next guy isn't taking more out of a communal resource, he's contributing twice as much to the economy. By definition.

earn /ərn/ verb

1. (of a person) obtain (money) in return for labor or services.



​

 

This is such political BS...you are wrong to stereotype...all spending energizes the economy...wealthy people spend a (*)(*)(*)(*) load of money! But you think spending by your 99% is preferential to the spending by your 1%...

 

Disagree for reasons stated. The contribution that was being referred to was contributing something productive in the economy. All the trust fund baby is doing is spending a bit of his money. That's nice, but anyone could do that.

Absolutley untrue. Post my quote where I ever said anything like that or quit making up what I think.

- - - Updated - - -

Depends on how he earns it. Is it "earning" it with his labor? Just so. Is he "earning" it by leveraging of the work of others? Less so. Is he "earning" it as interest from the trust fund daddy left him? Hardly so.

 

A contribution of what? He's not producing anything. He's just living off the capital others obtained. And at special low privileged tax rates.​

 

By your "logic," a thief also contributes to the economy when he spends what he has stolen.

That is what trying to rationalize privilege, justify injustice, and defend greed does to your brain.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

No, you think the 1% spending $1G on rent collection privileges is preferable to the 99% spending it on products of labor.