Elimination of The Payroll Tax [Archive] - Just Plain Politics!

Care4all

11-27-2006, 06:07 AM

Al Gore has proposed that The US eliminate The Payroll Tax, and replace it with another tax. Comments?

I can understand why people want to do thiis, because the payroll tax is a regressive tax on the poor and middle class and the wealthiest do not pay it, while the wealthiest BENEFIT from these surplus SS taxes via the general budget and general revenues fund....

The only problem with eliminating it would be the portion the employer pays for the employee would be eliminated too and that would be unfair unlesss these companies found another way to offer some sort of retirement program for their employees, which mosst don't....other than paying in to SS for the individual's retirement?

klaatu

11-27-2006, 07:05 AM

I totally agree with Gore.. that is if he is leaning towards a Consumption Tx.... what other form of Tax could he be referring to?

uscitizen

11-27-2006, 07:10 AM

Could be a play on words, He could be leaning or gearing up for a total income tax. All sources of income taxed the same ? I can't read politicos little pinheaded minds....

klaatu

11-27-2006, 07:16 AM

By the way.. the poor ...under a certain income...do not pay Taxes.... they get most or all of it ...and in some cases more than they paid into ... back in the form of a refund check. The working middle class is the class that takes it up the ass... Unlike the wealthy, this is the class that has very few loop holes if none at all to escape paying taxes.

Im convinced the only fair tax would be in the form of a consumption tax... where we all pay according to our standard of living.

Onceler

11-27-2006, 07:17 AM

He wants to tax carbon dioxide emissions (basically, penalizing pollution instead of employment...a "carbon tax").

It's an okay idea on paper, but would be challenging as more & more companies clean up & start moving toward alternative energy. Of course, that would be kind of a good problem to have...

Damocles

11-27-2006, 07:21 AM

Definitely it depends on what type of tax to which he refers. Too little information here to give a solid opinion on it...

Cypress

11-27-2006, 07:52 AM

Damocles

11-27-2006, 07:53 AM

By the way.. the poor ...under a certain income...do not pay Taxes.... they get most or all of it ...and in some cases more than they paid into ...

I seriously doubt that they "pay no taxes". I would speculate that the poor pay a relatively large chunk of their income on all forms of taxes: gasoline tax, sales and local state, excise tax, payroll tax, state tax, etc.

Maybe you're simply refering to federal income tax.
They still also pay payroll taxes, SSI takes a chunk up to a certain income level. The tax is regressive. The richest pay less of their income into the fund as after 90K or so they no longer have to pay into it. However, they are paid back by "Tax Credits" that really aren't Credits as they haven't paid the Tax they are getting a Credit for. They usually will get far more than they paid into SSI "back" from the federal government.

klaatu

11-27-2006, 07:55 AM

By the way.. the poor ...under a certain income...do not pay Taxes.... they get most or all of it ...and in some cases more than they paid into ...

I seriously doubt that they "pay no taxes". I would speculate that the poor pay a relatively large chunk of their income on all forms of taxes: gasoline tax, sales and local state, excise tax, payroll tax, state tax, etc.

Maybe you're simply refering to federal income tax.

I am referring to Federal Income Tax..because thats what we are talking about in this particular thread... Cypress, you are always trying to gain advantage by playing with words ... its so damn transparent.

Cypress

11-27-2006, 08:00 AM

They still also pay payroll taxes, SSI takes a chunk up to a certain income level. The tax is regressive. The richest pay less of their income into the fund as after 90K or so they no longer have to pay into it. However, they are paid back by "Tax Credits" that really aren't Credits as they haven't paid the Tax they are getting a Credit for. They usually will get far more than they paid into SSI "back" from the federal government.

Right. The poor don't have much money, and they DO pay a fair chunk of their income on ALL forms of taxes. When you're only makeing 18 grand a year, paying say 20 % of you income on all these other forms of taxes is burdensome enough. Its more burdensome to pay 20% on 18 grand, than it is to pay 25% on a hundred grand.

We can give them a break on one tax: the federal income tax. Its the christian thing to do ;)

Damocles

11-27-2006, 08:03 AM

Right. The poor don't have much money, and they DO pay a fair chunk of their income on ALL forms of taxes. When you're only makeing 18 grand a year, paying say 20 % of you income on all these other forms of taxes is burdensome enough. Its more burdensome to pay 20% on 18 grand, than it is to pay 25% on a hundred grand.

We can give them a break on one tax: the federal income tax. Its the christian thing to do ;)
We not only give them a break, we pay them for it. Like I said, they are more than paid back, on filing, for their Payroll Taxes of SSI, etc. The only forms they pay that may not be fully compensated for are sales taxes, but with the amount they get back in "Credits" for unpaid Federal Income Tax they are pretty close to getting paid back for that even...

Cypress

11-27-2006, 08:04 AM

I am referring to Federal Income Tax..because thats what we are talking about in this particular thread... Cypress, you are always trying to gain advantage by playing with words ... its so damn transparent.

Uh, no this thread wasn't about the Federal income tax. While I didn't read every single post, I assumed the debate was about the payroll FICA tax. That's not income tax.

The title of the threat was about the payroll tax. FICA.

The working poor pay a FICA tax. As I stated in my first post.

Cypress

11-27-2006, 08:07 AM

We not only give them a break, we pay them for it. Like I said, they are more than paid back, on filing, for their Payroll Taxes of SSI, etc. The only forms they pay that may not be fully compensated for are sales taxes, but with the amount they get back in "Credits" for unpaid Federal Income Tax they are pretty close to getting paid back for that even...

Sales tax isn't the only tax. There's gasoline tax, excise tax, utility tax, phone tax, etc. I've seen no evidence that the working poor "get back" more than they pay in.

uscitizen

11-27-2006, 08:09 AM

A simple soloution for those wishing to pay no income taxes, just become poor ;)

Damocles

11-27-2006, 08:10 AM

Sales tax isn't the only tax. There's gasoline tax, excise tax, utility tax, phone tax, etc. I've seen no evidence that the working poor "get back" more than they pay in.
All of those are consumption taxes. I was including them in the "sales tax"... as they are collected at the point of sale.

Damocles

11-27-2006, 08:12 AM

Sales tax isn't the only tax. There's gasoline tax, excise tax, utility tax, phone tax, etc. I've seen no evidence that the working poor "get back" more than they pay in.
So you never heard of Earned Income Credit? Or the fact that they get money in a return when all they have paid was Payroll Taxes? I know this to be fact because even before I had children, or a good job, I usually got a nice return. Pretending that this doesn't exist doesn't make it real....

Cypress

11-27-2006, 08:12 AM

Sales tax isn't the only tax. There's gasoline tax, excise tax, utility tax, phone tax, etc. I've seen no evidence that the working poor "get back" more than they pay in.

and conservatives are fond of saying that goverment "fees" is just a nice way of saying another "tax".

Car registration fees, liscence fees, sewage water and trash fees, toll road fees. All go to pay for government services. I honestly think the notion that the working poor "get back" more than they pay in, is a construct of the Rush Limbaugh show.

Cypress

11-27-2006, 08:14 AM

So you never heard of Earned Income Credit? Or the fact that they get money in a return when all they have paid was Payroll Taxes? I know this to be fact because even before I had children, or a good job, I usually got a nice return. Pretending that this doesn't exist doesn't make it real....

Do all working poor have kids?
Does the EIC only apply to people below the poverty line?

No.

No one has showed me any math, that shows when you account for ALL taxes and fees at the federal, state, and local level that they get back more than they pay in, on average.

Damocles

11-27-2006, 08:17 AM

Do all working poor have kids?
Does the EIC only apply to people below the poverty line?

No.

No one has showed me any math, that shows when you account for ALL taxes and fees at the federal, state, and local level that they get back more than they pay in, on average.
No, they do not. However I notice how you ignored the fact that when I was poor I received a "Return" on a tax I didn't pay. It was even a nice hefty one and that was long before I had children.

You are being deliberately obtuse if you miss that reference and zero in on just children...

Damocles

11-27-2006, 08:18 AM

Do all working poor have kids?
Does the EIC only apply to people below the poverty line?

No.

No one has showed me any math, that shows when you account for ALL taxes and fees at the federal, state, and local level that they get back more than they pay in, on average.
Oh, I wouldn't say they get more back than they pay, hence the word "almost" in my previous post. Man, you really are desperate to attempt to say that they are still regressive after their return nearly pays them back...

It becomes far less regressive because of that, it is why I mention it.

Cypress

11-27-2006, 08:19 AM

No, they do not. However I notice how you ignored the fact that when I was poor I received a "Return" on a tax I didn't pay. It was even a nice hefty one and that was long before I had children.

You are being deliberately obtuse if you miss that reference and zero in on just children...

I guess we will continue to debate in the theorectical.

No one appears to have a credible study, which crunches the math and accounts for all taxes and fees, to support the proposition that the working poor get back more than they pay in.

I guess we're stuck with "gut level" feelings on this. Considering the lack of any empirical data, your gut feelings or mine are unsatisfactory.

Damocles

11-27-2006, 08:22 AM

I guess we will continue to debate in the theorectical.

No one appears to have a credible study, which crunches the math and accounts for all taxes and fees, to support the proposition that the working poor get back more than they pay in.

I guess we're stuck with "gut level" feelings on this. Considering the lack of any empirical data, your gut feelings or mine are unsatisfactory.
Once again you throw up the strawman, 'more than they pay in' after I specifically mentioned it too!

There was a reason that I used "nearly" and "almost", because they do not get all that they pay in back, just more than they pay in SSI.

Cypress

11-27-2006, 08:25 AM

Once again you throw up the strawman, 'more than they pay in' after I specifically mentioned it too!

There was a reason that I used "nearly" and "almost", because they do not get all that they pay in back, just more than they pay in SSI.

Fair enough.

But when you say "nearly" or "almost", those should be quantifiable statements, backed up by empirical evidence.

I won't venture a gut level feeling on what the answer is. There are a lot of taxes and fees out there, that the working poor pay. I suspect that they pay more in, than they get back on a federal tax credit or EIC, but I can't prove it.

Damocles

11-27-2006, 08:30 AM

LadyT

11-27-2006, 09:35 AM

My only fear is they would implement a federal sales tax under the guise of eliminating payroll tax deductions, only somehow weasel their way around eliminating the payroll tax and we'd be stuck with FITs and VAT.

If the system ensured that the poor were not over taxed I could be convinced of a sales tax in place of income taxes.

klaatu

11-27-2006, 10:37 AM

Uh, no this thread wasn't about the Federal income tax. While I didn't read every single post, I assumed the debate was about the payroll FICA tax. That's not income tax.

The title of the threat was about the payroll tax. FICA.

The working poor pay a FICA tax. As I stated in my first post.

Payroll taxes are state and federal taxes ...which would also include FICA ... since Al Gore is the person who made the suggestion.. one would assume he is speaking on behalf of the federal Government which means he is probably talking about Federal Income Taxes that are withheld from an employees check.... there is the possibility that he is also referring to SS.

The working poor do pay a FICA ...but as Damo says..they will get much more in return. In many cases.., Tax Credits such as EIC and Child Care ..... often yield a larger return than what they actually pay in Fed Taxes. State and Sales Tax is another issue all together.

Jarod

11-27-2006, 10:39 AM

I think we should tax less on income and make up for it with consumption and inhertance taxes.

LadyT

11-27-2006, 10:48 AM

I think we should tax less on income and make up for it with consumption and inhertance taxes.

I think either or. I don't trust the federal gov't with the power to do both. As a matter of fact, I'm much more confortable with a consumption tax. The less they need to know about you, the better.

LadyT

11-27-2006, 10:49 AM

Although, I don't know how that would play out with SS

Jarod

11-27-2006, 02:00 PM

The government needs money to exist, war in Iraq costs money. Protecting ourselves from Domestic terrorists costs money.

Given that there must be a tax, whats the most fair and least obtrusive way for the government to get that money...

Income tax is about the least fair, because it takes money from those who work hard, and it takes money from those who are the most profitable to our society.

Now, consumption tax is good because it takes money from those who use the services the most. If you buy meat at the grocery you are benefiting from the money spent on the FDA. If you drive a car on the street you are benefiting from money spent on roads and safety and such. You are costing those who spend, not necessarly those who earn!

Inheritance tax is still better than income tax because you are not taxing those who are working hard or those who earned it, you are just limiting an indiviual's control of his wealth after his death. To me that is MUCH more fair than limiting control of a living person's wealth.

Jarod

11-27-2006, 02:13 PM

With the current system, a person (who inhereted tuns of money from his parents, who got it from there parents, who got if from there parents X5, who got it by raiding some poor village 500 years ago...) and never earned a dime in his life could be one of the largest users of governmetal services while still not paying as much as the poor schlub who works his fingers to the bone and uses less services.

Care4all

11-27-2006, 02:25 PM

I'm working on personal experience. I made barely any money as an E-1 in the Navy. Yet I got back more than I paid... I got back more than I paid when I worked at the local Amusement Park, and at McDonald's... There seems to be a pattern. Although I had to pay tax at the gas pump, more than I paid in meant that some of that was offset... I know I was getting Credits that I don't get now... It seems that I am able to draw on that experience to bring some understanding of how I was somewhat compensated for the fact that I was poor.

gosh, things have changed since I was younger....?

At ALL OF my low paying jobs, under 10 k a year jobs, I NEVER GOT ANY KIND OF earned income credit WHAT SO EVER.....

Is this some credit that those with CHILDREN qualify for....? or, because it was 25 years ago....(ugh, can't believe I am this old :()....and they did not have any earned income credit back then?

care

Damocles

11-27-2006, 02:36 PM

You got a return, you don't get EIC unless you have children. I stated so in that post.

uscitizen

11-27-2006, 03:01 PM

And why should people with children pay less taxes anyway ? they put the bigger burden on our society than those without children but pay less taxes....

Damocles

11-27-2006, 03:04 PM

And why should people with children pay less taxes anyway ? they put the bigger burden on our society than those without children but pay less taxes....
It is to incentivize the family... Without the kids how would you ever get even one payment of your Social Security?

uscitizen

11-27-2006, 03:15 PM

So child care deductions are hidden SS payments ?
Who under the age of 55 expects to get any SS anyway ?

Damocles

11-27-2006, 03:17 PM

So child care deductions are hidden SS payments ?
Who under the age of 55 expects to get any SS anyway ?
No, but they are future earners who will pay for your SS. Are you deliberately missing the fact that they will earn the money you draw? That at one point you were the kid that was going to become the earner for the nation? That the future is something that we have chosen to invest in?

Jarod

11-27-2006, 03:24 PM

It is to incentivize the family... Without the kids how would you ever get even one payment of your Social Security?

People who have children based on a tax cut should not have children!

uscitizen

11-27-2006, 03:27 PM

No, but they are future earners who will pay for your SS. Are you deliberately missing the fact that they will earn the money you draw? That at one point you were the kid that was going to become the earner for the nation? That the future is something that we have chosen to invest in?

Naw they won't pay for mine. The surplus has been spent and in a few years ALL TAXPAYERS will be paying for SS for the second time.

Damocles

11-27-2006, 04:14 PM

Naw they won't pay for mine. The surplus has been spent and in a few years ALL TAXPAYERS will be paying for SS for the second time.

Which means that those kids, when they enter the workforce, will be paying your SS. I don't think it will even exist when they and I get to the point of collection.

uscitizen

11-27-2006, 07:21 PM

So you are pro SS Damo ?

Damocles

11-27-2006, 08:00 PM

So you are pro SS Damo ?
No. I'm not. I really don't think it is worth what we pay. However, it is the reality that I and those kids will be paying for many people's retirement before it is all said and done.

uscitizen

11-28-2006, 12:34 AM

Yes they will be doing that and paying for bush's war as well, plus their children too.

Care4all

11-28-2006, 06:11 AM

So basically, those that do not have children pay for the children that others choose to have because some day those children will contribute to the tax structure?

It does seem strange that the government gives a tax credit to people that have children AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY HAD THEM....that really doesn't seem like some tax credit that would make someone have children or encourage one having children.....?

Australia, pays the mothers TO HAVE CHILDREN before they even get pregnant to encourage childbirth, so to ensure paying their future bills like taxes...

klaatu

11-28-2006, 06:30 AM

No. I'm not. I really don't think it is worth what we pay. However, it is the reality that I and those kids will be paying for many people's retirement before it is all said and done.

Yes it is a reality ... for now. Sadly ...Bush was not able to convince America that SS needs to be reformed and brought into the 21st century and we are living in an era where technology could make the transition painless. I suspect in the near future...be it a Democrat or Republican .... A plan very much like the one Bush was trying to sell will be presented once again and this time it will be sold. The one part of this that pisses me off ...I'll be too old to take advantage of it ..... and to think Ive been an advocate of some sort of privatization for years.... at least my kids will be righted....

uscitizen

11-28-2006, 10:08 AM

The tech used in fatherland security has not been painless, nor would I suspect would the privitization of SS either.

uscitizen

11-28-2006, 01:56 PM

I say lets keep payroll taxes. It gives the congress incentive to keep our wages up. We make less money, they get less money to buy favors with.

I am for a pure flat rate personal income tax. If you make $1,000 you pay a flat percentage for that say 15%. If you make $100,000,000,000 you pay 15% of that. No exemptions for anything.

Agnosticus_Caesar

11-28-2006, 09:54 PM

One person got it. Gore proposed to replace payroll taxes with carbon emissions taxes.

Agnosticus_Caesar

11-28-2006, 09:55 PM

For those of you arguing about tax credits for those with children:

Such a credit exists for ONE reason...VOTES.

klaatu

11-29-2006, 07:47 AM

For those of you arguing about tax credits for those with children:

Such a credit exists for ONE reason...VOTES.

EIC and Childcare credits have been around for years ..... so who gains?

klaatu

11-29-2006, 07:58 AM

I understand the rational thinking behind taxing carbon emissions ... but how long would the revenue stream last? I could see two things transpiring ..one... a positive ... manufacturers would work their asses off controlling the emissions to lessen the tax burden..., the other a negative ..Corporate America would flee the country. Both cases transpiring... the revenue stream would lessen to the point where a new tax would be neccessary to make up the difference... less emissions = less revenue; less manufacurers = less revenue. What would the new tax be? A return to Payroll.., Sales?

uscitizen

11-29-2006, 08:13 AM

Corporate america is already fleeing the country Klaatu.

TRGLDTE

11-29-2006, 09:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damocles
No, but they are future earners who will pay for your SS. Are you deliberately missing the fact that they will earn the money you draw? That at one point you were the kid that was going to become the earner for the nation? That the future is something that we have chosen to invest in?

Naw they won't pay for mine. The surplus has been spent and in a few years ALL TAXPAYERS will be paying for SS for the second time.

Naw they won't pay for mine. The surplus has been spent and in a few years ALL TAXPAYERS will be paying for SS for the second time. All that money sitting in IRAs will be such a tempting target. Those who had foregone consumption in favor of a secure retirement should expect to get screwed. The same jackasses who leased SUVs will be whining "They have all that money and I can't afford anything - It's not faaaaiiiiiirrrr!"

uscitizen

11-29-2006, 09:25 AM

Not me, I will be dead before those being born today ever pay in a dime to SS.
Sorry just a bit of a Grind moment there ;)
And besides I have already paid in most all my premiums.
Not my fault the gummit already spent them on other stuff.

Topspin

11-29-2006, 12:51 PM

It's not going to change the power brokers love it the way it is.
A carbon tax only would be sweet. I'd have me a plug in prius and pay next to no taxes.
And it would but the dog huey out of my Alt energy investments.
Go Al!!!!

uscitizen

11-29-2006, 06:43 PM

You work for an oil company and drive a prius ?
Do you actually drive it to work ?

Topspin

11-29-2006, 07:15 PM

I said i'd as in I would.
I drive a used explored sport.
Right now Prius isn't worth the extra cost.
If we had a carbon tax it would justify itself real quick.

Agnosticus_Caesar

11-29-2006, 09:13 PM

"I understand the rational thinking behind taxing carbon emissions ... but how long would the revenue stream last? I could see two things transpiring ..one... a positive ... manufacturers would work their asses off controlling the emissions to lessen the tax burden..., the other a negative ..Corporate America would flee the country. Both cases transpiring... the revenue stream would lessen to the point where a new tax would be neccessary to make up the difference... less emissions = less revenue; less manufacurers = less revenue. What would the new tax be? A return to Payroll.., Sales?"

Do you really think we will be weaned off CO2 producing Tech in THAT short a period of time? How laissez-pollyanna are you?

Most of corporate America isn't directly involved in CO2 production. We ceased to be a manufacturing based country long ago.

You also fail to take into account the revenues generated by taking back the energy sector.

uscitizen

11-29-2006, 09:40 PM

I said i'd as in I would.
I drive a used explored sport.
Right now Prius isn't worth the extra cost.
If we had a carbon tax it would justify itself real quick.

sorry I misunderstood. And I agree on the extra cost for the short term at least, but in the long term.....