Tax Burden and the services you receive

[Baron Von Raschke]

Originally Posted by Eimon Gnome

I'll give you credit. At least you've given it a shot.

And the underlying premise seems to be "the best world is one where everyone is allowed to exercise free choice in all situations, regardless of consequence."
Fair take?

Maybe we should apply your own standard - is smoking prevalence higher or lower in countries that have less personal freedom?

[Incredible Hulctuary]

Originally Posted by SamCook

Your opinion but most people would disagree!

You think you'd be better off with zero taxes and zero government?

Question who gives you the right to steal other people's money and pay for programs that you believe are worthwhile?

That's a separate debate, which involves quibbles over what is "right", "steal", "other people's money", and "worthwhile". The question at the top of the thread wasn't about whether it's right, it's about whether you receive more value than the tax burden you pay.

[independent]

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

Free markets ain't perfect, but I don't know of a better option. The best system (IMO) is the one that gives people the freedom to make stupid options but the ability and the resources to make smart and informed decisions. Interpret that as you will.

This is good. We could also talk about externalities.

[ditkaworshipper]

Originally Posted by Eimon Gnome

Late minute update: Westminster Abbey is in London.

And if you don't consider religion a part of culture (weird, but possible), then take out a map and put a little pin in the places you find a pro football, pro basketball, or pro baseball stadium. I figure that's your idea of culture.

at this point, I know you're trolling since you deleted the portion of my post that covered this.

Originally Posted by Academic Actuary

I am always amused by the anti regulatory fervor on this forum. I don't think a lot of people who post realize that they would be unemployed if insurers, and pensions weren't subject to strict regulatory compliance. Ironically, I guess they are promoting their perception of the public interest, against their personal interest.

so true

[FormLetter]

Originally Posted by Eimon Gnome

mmmm. no

My turn. Name three things the marketplace ever got right.

Chi Chi's

[SamCook]

Originally Posted by Incredible Hulctuary

You think you'd be better off with zero taxes and zero government?


That's a separate debate, which involves quibbles over what is "right", "steal", "other people's money", and "worthwhile". The question at the top of the thread wasn't about whether it's right, it's about whether you receive more value than the tax burden you pay.

You are trying to create a straw man. Who has argued for zero taxes?!

We are saying that the level of taxation is too high. Does this make sense? 50% of the population does not pay any federal income tax. While the upper income folks are payin >20%. How is this fair? The point of the thread is to point out that if you are payin >20% and you have no kids, no house ... you get screwed. You do not get a fair share of gov't services. PLEASE

And 60% of federal spending is on Medicare and SS. These programs spread money from the rich to the poor and people who don't work.

What is your argument exactly?

[independent]

Originally Posted by SamCook

And 60% of federal spending is on Medicare and SS. These programs spread money from the rich to the poor and people who don't work.

Not sure what you are thinking here, I suppose it depends on your definition of "rich". Since SS is funded with a regressive tax on labor income and Medicare (at least partially) by a flat tax on labor income, the "rich" don't pay a particularly big share.

According to the CBO, in 2006 the top 1% (sorted by income) had 19% of pre-tax income, and paid 4% of "social insurance" taxes.

These programs take money from current workers and provide benefits for retired or disabled former workers. Higher income workers get smaller benefits relative to their taxes, so there is a net transfer from higher to lower workers, but the really rich don't play a particularly big role.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...rates_2006.pdf

[Wigmeister General]

Why are we debating this issue when the ignorant masses (who vote, unfortunately) hold up signs like these?

[SamCook]

Originally Posted by independent

Not sure what you are thinking here, I suppose it depends on your definition of "rich". Since SS is funded with a regressive tax on labor income and Medicare (at least partially) by a flat tax on labor income, the "rich" don't pay a particularly big share.

According to the CBO, in 2006 the top 1% (sorted by income) had 19% of pre-tax income, and paid 4% of "social insurance" taxes.

These programs take money from current workers and provide benefits for retired or disabled former workers. Higher income workers get smaller benefits relative to their taxes, so there is a net transfer from higher to lower workers, but the really rich don't play a particularly big role.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...rates_2006.pdf

Where am I going with this? I am pointing out that the Social Security tax is unfair since the "wealthy" subsidize the poor. The wealthy get a raw deal, the point of the thread is to point out that some people don't get much for their taxes. Social Security is an example.

Do you know how the social security formula works?

The "wealthy" making over 40K per year over 35 years get a 15% factor applied to their social security benefit. While the poor who make under 10K get a 90% benefit. I think income 10K to 40K gets a 32% factor.

Here is a link to a calculator that can give you your projected benefit
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/benefitcalculators.htm

Based on the Social Security formula someone making 100K per year gets about 20% the benefit as someone making 10K per year.

[Academic Actuary]

Originally Posted by Wigmeister General

Why are we debating this issue when the ignorant masses (who vote Republican, unfortunately) hold up signs like these?

IFYP