What Are Payroll Tax Supported Programs to You?

[WhoWee]

I agree, my meaning was clear, but you still don't get it.

I posed an absurd situation in which somebody making 1,000,000 per year was taxed at 90% for all of it. I repeat, that is an absurd situation. It would be horribly unfair, and I would never support such a heavy tax.

Have I made that clear enough?

Then, I posed a more plausible situation, where a person making 15k per year is taxed at 2% on all of it. I'm talking net, not gross, by the way. This takes into consideration all taxes and all tax credits. He loses 2% per year.

It is my argument that the person being taxed at 2% in this scenario is being taxed more harshly than the person being taxed at 90%, based on the impact it has on their ability to live.

Both people are being taxed harshly in this situation. Neither situation is fair in my eyes.

Am I still being clear? I never once advocated that taxing millionaires at 90% is a good idea. It's a terrible idea, in fact. I never said they only "deserve" only 10%. This comes entirely from your imagination. Again, I ask you to read what I actually wrote instead of what you wish I had wrote. Setting up straw man arguments to tear down is a logical fallacy, and I'm sorry if you feel I'm being rude by pointing that out (that's usually your next step in these threads, is to accuse people of being rude for pointing out your mistakes.)

Again, no need to be rude - or arrogant. I'll invite others to comment as to what they thought you meant. As for mistakes - have I provided enough information regarding small businesses to help you understand the definition of one yet?

 

[WhoWee]

I agree, my meaning was clear, but you still don't get it.

I posed an absurd situation in which somebody making 1,000,000 per year was taxed at 90% for all of it. I repeat, that is an absurd situation. It would be horribly unfair, and I would never support such a heavy tax.

Have I made that clear enough?

Then, I posed a more plausible situation, where a person making 15k per year is taxed at 2% on all of it. I'm talking net, not gross, by the way. This takes into consideration all taxes and all tax credits. He loses 2% per year.

It is my argument that the person being taxed at 2% in this scenario is being taxed more harshly than the person being taxed at 90%, based on the impact it has on their ability to live.

Both people are being taxed harshly in this situation. Neither situation is fair in my eyes.

Am I still being clear? I never once advocated that taxing millionaires at 90% is a good idea. It's a terrible idea, in fact. I never said they only "deserve" only 10%. This comes entirely from your imagination. Again, I ask you to read what I actually wrote instead of what you wish I had wrote. Setting up straw man arguments to tear down is a logical fallacy, and I'm sorry if you feel I'm being rude by pointing that out (that's usually your next step in these threads, is to accuse people of being rude for pointing out your mistakes.)

I'd like to invite everyone to read Jack's post above - then read his original post below - and share what you think he meant. my bold
""Even if we taxed every dollar of somebody who makes 1,000,000 per year at 90%, they'd still clear 100,000 per year. If somebody here wants to say a person cannot survive on clearing 100k per year, I'd like to hear it. ""

Given his challenge - it seems he was quite sincere about the 90% tax - doesn't it?
BTW - All of my posts tie back to the OP - if anyone thinks I've put up a strawman - please indicate.

 

[WhoWee]

Setting up straw man arguments to tear down is a logical fallacy, and I'm sorry if you feel I'm being rude by pointing that out (that's usually your next step in these threads, is to accuse people of being rude for pointing out your mistakes.)

my bold
Please support - "usually" implies more than once - perhaps even often. If you can't support - please retract.

 

[Jack21222]

have I provided enough information regarding small businesses to help you understand the definition of one yet?

You've now gone from straw man to red herring. The definition of small business has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#herring (from the stickied thread in this forum)

Please support - "usually" implies more than once - perhaps even often. If you can't support - please retract.

Surely you can go through your own posts just as easily as I can. I was right, wasn't I? That was your next step.

 

[WhoWee]

You've now gone from straw man to red herring. The definition of small business has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#herring (from the stickied thread in this forum)



Surely you can go through your own posts just as easily as I can. I was right, wasn't I? That was your next step.

Interesting response Jack - as for the small business definition you posted:
"Don't be so thick. If a business owner makes a million dollars a year in salary, it's not a small business."
My response was to provide the Government's definition of a small business that clearly supported my post. Then, after I asked you not to be rude, you attempted to taunt me with:
"Wow, you seriously can't tell the difference between a business's net income and an owner's annual salary. Plus, even if it IS a "small business owner" who employs people and yada yada yada like you said, could you please explain to me how that would have any relevance at all on the point I made?"
Then you objected to the word "deserves" and here we are.

I will support my comments all day long and admit when I'm wrong - apologize as well.

You were not right when you posted this personal attack:
"(that's usually your next step in these threads, is to accuse people of being rude for pointing out your mistakes.)"

You need to either support your post specifically or retract it and quit playing games.

 

[Jack21222]

You need to either support your post specifically or retract it

I need to do neither, and you're going to get this thread locked with repeated off-topic posts.

 

[WhoWee]

I need to do neither, and you're going to get this thread locked with repeated off-topic posts.

Support or retract - put up or shut up sir!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This thread has moved pretty fast, but I wanted to go back real fast and address a post Jimmy Snyder made:

As for the point that I might actually have to make, it might be clearer if I referred to the phrase in the Constitution that seems to negate the rest of the document: "Promote the general welfare". I am asking if the SS program promotes the general welfare. If not, then it should be abolished as unconstitutional. If it does, then perhaps it should be considered a tax. I didn't have a point, I merely asked a question.

The "general welfare clause" in the U.S. Constitution is not an enumerated power, it is a qualification to describe the limited power the federal government has for the purpose of taxation. Like the mention of "the general welfare" in the preamble, it is included as a descriptive modifier.

Unlike some other countries' constitutions which do provide a specific enumerated power for general legislation for the "general welfare," the US Constitution provides no such power.

 

[daveb]

This thread has moved pretty fast, but I wanted to go back real fast and address a post Jimmy Snyder made:



The "general welfare clause" in the U.S. Constitution is not an enumerated power, it is a qualification to describe the limited power the federal government has for the purpose of taxation. Like the mention of "the general welfare" in the preamble, it is included as a descriptive modifier.

Unlike some other countries' constitutions which do provide a specific enumerated power for general legislation for the "general welfare," the US Constitution provides no such power.

To add in what was said, even though it isn't an enumerated power, the supreme sourt has held that it can be used as an aid to determine the applicability of certain enumerated powers, such as eminent domain in the 5th amendment (see Ellis v City of Grand Rapids). Much as I detest using Wikipedia for a source, it actually has a good treatment of how the courts have used the preamble. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution"

 

[mheslep]

This thread has moved pretty fast, but I wanted to go back real fast and address a post Jimmy Snyder made:
The "general welfare clause" in the U.S. Constitution is not an enumerated power, it is a qualification to describe the limited power the federal government has for the purpose of taxation. Like the mention of "the general welfare" in the preamble, it is included as a descriptive modifier.

Unlike some other countries' constitutions which do provide a specific enumerated power for general legislation for the "general welfare," the US Constitution provides no such power.

While I agree with that interpretation, that is not the Hamiltonian view or the view held by SCOTUS since the New Deal cases. If the view stated here held, SS would have been rejected on constitutional grounds in the 30s.