Corporations successfully transferring tax burden to workers

[Sauron]

This is a great graph.

Notice how the green line (corporate taxes) has been shrinking. But since there is no such thing as a free lunch, the purple line (payroll taxes) has quadrupled to compensate.

Corporations have successfully transferred the tax burden off themselves and onto the workers.

[Jerome]

This is why labor taxes are immoral.

[Dragar]

This is why labor taxes are moral.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

This is why labor taxes are immoral.

How would you know? You can't even give a definition for the most common taxation brackets, or dollar values for tax amounts, or any number of terms either commonly used, or used in your posts.

Unless you've decided to go back and answer several threads where you chickenshitted your way out the back door and never provided these?

[Jerome]

Sauron, tell me more about how government taxes a person's ability to care for himself.

Do you have any more charts chowing the overtaxing of the worker?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

This is why labor taxes are moral.

It is wrong to tax a person's ability to care for himself.

[Kyuss Apollo]

Oh well, Sauron. Apparently using data taken from the budgets of the United States from the past 6 decades as your source just isn't quite good enough for Jerry.

You need to find charts that leave out the actual fucking-over of US workers for the last 40 years. Fairy-Dust Land might be a good place to look for those.

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

It is wrong to tax a person's ability to care for himself.

So you then reject Herman Cain's plan? The plan that taxes the poorest of the poor and the billionaire at the same rate of 9%? That taxes medicine and food at 9%?

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

A person who is not self-employed has 5.65% of their gross income taxed for FICA. You can argue that is too high, though of course under a certain income and/or with dependents, that tax is refunded. You can argue that 5.65% is too high if you like, but you look like a dumbass when you turn around and defend Cain's 999 plan as if it wasn't obviously much more regressive, and more burdensome for the poor and middle class.

FICA is a regressive tax. As is a flat tax system, as are sales taxes. I would be perfectly fine with a progressive FICA tax, and especially with removing the Social Security cap. If you are serious about discussing abolishing or removing part or all of FICA, then it is reasonable to ask for how Social Security and Medicare will be funded if not through FICA.

If you're characterizing FICA taxes as money better invested in retirement or whatever else by the individual (i.e. "It is wrong to tax a person's ability to care for himself")- before Social Security more than a third of the elderly were living in poverty; today that number is 10%*. So if that's your flavor then feel free to tell how the nation would be freer and people happier if only we could go back. The good 'ol days, with triple the poverty for poor people. It only makes sense!**

*I'm sure even fewer than that if you start counting how many of those 10% have A/C units, microwave ovens, or cable television. Fakers!

**Not really.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

A person who is not self-employed has 5.65% of their gross income taxed for FICA.

Why do you keep pretending that a tax on a person's labor is not a tax on a person's labor?

you look like a dumbass when you turn around and defend Cain's 999 plan as if it wasn't obviously much more regressive, and more burdensome for the poor and middle class.

Apparently there is an exemptions for those in poverty.

FICA is a regressive tax. As is a flat tax system, as are sales taxes.

Not if there are exemption for the poor.

- before Social Security more than a third of the elderly were living in poverty; today that number is 10%*.

There was a world wide depression retard, lots of people were living in poverty.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

It is wrong to tax a person's ability to care for himself.

It is wrong to not tax a person's income.

This is fun!

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It is wrong to not tax a person's income.

This is fun!

If you told people 100 years ago that the 'income' tax was a tax on labor they would have called you an idiot.

Income is profit, there is no profit in the exchange of a person's day of labor for a wage, this is an even transaction.

[Dragar]

Income isn't profit. That's why we use two different words. If you'd told them that 100 years ago, or today, they'd call you an idiot Jerome!

[Kyuss Apollo]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

There was a world wide depression retard, lots of people were living in poverty.

If I actually cared enough to engage in a fruitless discussion, I would find stats/evidence that showed that even prior to the Great Depression there were "retard, lots of people were living in poverty."

[chunksmediocrites]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Why do you keep pretending that a tax on a person's labor is not a tax on a person's labor?

Apparently there is an exemptions for those in poverty.

Not if there are exemption for the poor.

There was a world wide depression retard, lots of people were living in poverty.

I'm talking about what is actually deducted from actual wages of workers. What I'm not doing is conflating the topic of how much individuals pay in taxes with what the total FICA percentage- more than half of which currently is paid by the employer- adds up to. Two different things. As you know.

You say there are exemptions for the poor under Herman Cain's 999 plan? Then link or quote and source that. Because last I checked I found no such information. If you can't find it, then STFU.

Seriously you are arguing that SS and poverty figures for elderly before and after coorelates primarily to a depression in the world economy? Care to source that? Because here I thought financially supporting the elderly might have some coorelation to the financial conditions of the elderly. Wierd.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Sauron, tell me more about how government taxes a person's ability to care for himself.

At this point, Jeremy Soetero, you can't afford to open up any more fronts in this discussion war; you can't handle the workload that's already on your plate.

But in the meantime, you've already bitten off more than you can chew, and I'm certainly not going to enable you to create another rabbit-hole tangent to distract us from that fact.

So:
tell us these definitions that have already been asked of you multiple times. Once you've finished that, maybe I'll indulge you.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites

I'm talking about what is actually deducted from actual wages of workers.

No you are not.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Income isn't profit. That's why we use two different words. If you'd told them that 100 years ago, or today, they'd call you an idiot Jerome!

One had to earn over $200,000 before paying an income/profit tax, at the inception.

No citizen thought this was a tax on wages.

[erimir]

Yes, yes, the rich should pay more than the poor, but the rich will always win and turn a tax on them into a tax on the poor, so we shouldn't even bother trying to tax the rich, that way they can't manipulate the non-existent taxes

Here's a hint JEROME: capitulating to the rich =/= supporting the poor, and nobody's buying your bullshit.

[Jerome]

Tax only that which benefits only the rich, dumbass.

[erimir]

And what would that be?

Cuz I know that's nothing like that 9-9-9 shit that you defended, either your version or Herman Cain's.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

One had to earn over $200,000 before paying an income/profit tax, at the inception.

No citizen thought this was a tax on wages.

Cool, did you know the first steam-powered transport was built in 1692?

[SR71]

That excise tax looks ripe for the fattening. It's down to nothing. Maybe Mom and Pop could quit the job at Walmart and reopen the old store if that would happen. Call me protectionist. Trade war? We're already getting our asses kicked. How much worse can it get? Unless we like being the dumping ground for the world.

Borrow and consume. Borrow and consume. oooohhhhhmmmmm

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by erimir

And what would that be?

How about if you are making less than $200,000 in 'income' you pay not tax.

make it 70% above that threshold, 80%, so what, here you are not taxing wages.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

How about if you are making less than $200,000 in 'income' you pay not tax.

make it 70% above that threshold, 80%, so what, here you are not taxing wages.

Is it your contention that an income tax of any amount on a person making $190k a year impedes their ability to feed, clothe, and house themselves or their families?

[erimir]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

How about if you are making less than $200,000 in 'income' you pay not tax.

make it 70% above that threshold, 80%, so what, here you are not taxing wages.

Sure, I'd be in favor of raising the amount of income that is exempt from income tax. Not that high, but yeah.

However, your whole argument has always been that the rich will turn any such tax into a tax on the poor, so we shouldn't be arguing to raise taxes on the rich. Now you're proposing that we... tax income. Which is somehow different.