posted
SS: so long as you don't mind crypto that will "only" take a few dozen to a hundred years to crack, strong crypto is perfectly available to US citizens. Heck, you might well use it nearly every day, depending on what sites you surf and if you use (Open)PGP. AES is publically available as well as being acceptable for encrypting TOP SECRET material (provided the key length is either 192 or 256).
It is exporting strong crypto that's illegal.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only truly regressive tax in the U.S. are the sales taxes imposed in most states.
Not true. The payroll taxes for social security and medicare are regressive - especially social security, which is only assessed on the first 90k or so of wages. They're not assessed at all on many other forms of income, most of which go dispoportionately to those earning more.
Those would be trust fund taxes, and they are not regressive. They are not as progressive as the basic income tax system, but they still are taxed using a progressive system - those with high incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than those with lower incomes.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
You said "only truly regressive tax in the U.S." Besides, lacking any kind of legal guarantee, they are not trust fund taxes. The trust fund is a legal fiction.
quote:and they are not regressive. They are not as progressive as the basic income tax system, but they still are taxed using a progressive system - those with high incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than those with lower incomes.
Social security taxes are collected at a 6.2% rate for all wages and self-employment income up to 97,500. The rate after 97,500 is 0%. Medicare taxes are collected at a rate of 1.45% for all wages and self-employment income.
The only way these taxes are progressive is if one factors the entire EITC into the calculation, and there's no particular reason to be applying anything beyond the maximum $412 credit to payroll taxes.
If one does that, then the effective payroll tax rate at 10,000 is 3.53%. It increases to 7.23% at 97,500, then plummets above that.
The effective rate is higher for 80,000 than 100,000 (7.14% v. 7.09%). The effective rate is higher for 60,000 than 110,000 (6.96% v. 6.59%). The effective rate is higher for 20,000 than 140,000 (5.59% v. 5.53%).
For all wages above $290,000, the rate is lower than for wages below $10,000.
How is that progressive?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: You forgot employer matching (which you have to pay both sides if you're self employed) which makes SS even more oppressive.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Employer matching is much harder to calculate - the $97,500 limit applies per employer and there's no EITC offset. It doesn't change the final outcome, though it does change the actual numbers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fed Law: . . . some "pay" negative taxes, getting a refund even though they pay no income tax.
For whom is this true? (I mean, what are the circumstances behind this?) I have not heard of this. My father lives off of Social Security and pays no taxes, but he does not get a refund either.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some permutations of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that result in negative income tax paid. Check out the wiki article on it for more detail. The intent was to provide assistance to those in poverty while not reducing incentive to work.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The thing about the Earned INcome Tax Credit is that you can only get it if you did have an income that and are not living with anyone else who is supporting you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: SS: so long as you don't mind crypto that will "only" take a few dozen to a hundred years to crack, strong crypto is perfectly available to US citizens. Heck, you might well use it nearly every day, depending on what sites you surf and if you use (Open)PGP. AES is publically available as well as being acceptable for encrypting TOP SECRET material (provided the key length is either 192 or 256).
It is exporting strong crypto that's illegal.
I wasn't speaking of how things exist now.
There have been any number of proposals to weaken the ability of the general public's access to strong cryptography and/or to give law enforcement back doors.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions.
I think it is the old school part of me that just will not let go. I hate the phrase "seperate-but-equal" (because it never is), but yes I have no issue with gay couples having a legal union that gives them every right that my wife and I have. I think it's because I had such an ultra-conservative upbringing that I can't let go and call it a marriage.
Anyway, that's my thought.
I thought so, gotchya. I still don't understand what the big deal is about calling it a marriage since that's just a name (one which I'll use, because if I'm a couple with another guy, I'm not going around saying I'm 'unionized,' that just sounds silly. I'll be married in my eyes and that's that.) Oh well, thanks for clarifying. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: 5. Tax equality -- I want to see the rich pay their fair share
I'm curious, who do you think pays taxes in the U.S. now?
The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 30-35% of the total income taxes each year.
The top 5% of taxpayers pay about 50% of the total income taxes each year.
The top 50% of taxpayers pay about 95% of the total income taxes each year.
The bottom 50% of tax payers pay the remaining 5%. Many taxpayers in the bottom 50% pay no taxes at all; some "pay" negative taxes, getting a refund even though they pay no income tax.
Trust fund taxes are also paid on a progressive basis. Property taxes are paid mostly by those in the higher income brackets (because they are more likely to own taxable property, and their property is likely to be worth more).
The only truly regressive tax in the U.S. are the sales taxes imposed in most states. You could make an argument that things like the federal gasoline tax or "sin" taxes are also regressive in effect. Are you saying that you want to repeal sales taxes and the gasoline tax?
Add to that
The Top 1% of Americans own 38.1% of the wealth The Top 5% of Americans own 59.4 % of the wealth The top 60% of American own 99.7% of the wealth.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I support a FairTax. I'm fairly convinced it would work very well for the country, and I'd like to see it tried out. Perhaps they could start out by cutting payroll taxes by 25%, and institute 25% of the final tax they think would have to be created. Wait for things to stablize for a year, then go another 25%. I think doing it all at once would be a shock to the consumers.
It's not my biggest issue, but I think it deserves national attention.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
