It has been reported? Then it must be true. No need to even vet the source.
Yeah, I’m no Obama fan but I’m gonna need a cite on that.
Up until then it wasn’t. The founding fathers believed that the vote belonged to white male property holders. Fortunately, this country has largely repudiated that view.
So, do you stilll want it both ways? Payroll taxes aren’t really taxes, but Social Security and medicare benefits are a part of the federal debt? You are making the same error.
And, by the way, do not presume to speak for me. Taxes are taxes. Your income taxes are no more onerous than my payroll taxes, nor more qualified as skin in the game.
I don’t want it both ways. He was acting as though paying payroll taxes offset or excused not paying income taxes, or made Republican critiques of the narrowing of the federal income taxpayer population irrelevant or unjustified. It doesn’t. It just means someone did pay for one part of the federal budget but did not pay for another (inasmuch as a fungible commodity like money can be “tracked” in a budget where everything’s actually being funded by deficit spending anyhow). It was a weak argument and I pointed out the weakness.
Then how did nine nations with socialized medicine wind up in the Economic Freedom Top Ten as compiled by the Heritage Foundation, not generally recognized as a lefty organization. And that is only if you accept Hong Kong as the most economically free in the world; Hong Kong, a ChicCom administrative region!
Ah, but it isn’t the sons of the wealthy who go off to fight the pubbies’ ill-conceived wars, is it? It is hard to think of something that is more ‘skin in the game’ than being shot at.
This is a very significant point. Social Security and Medicare would not be in trouble today if the trust fund hadn’t been raided to pay for general budget spending and tax cuts for the rich. So, in a very real way, payroll taxes have been funding the rest of government for decades. No skin, indeed.
In a voluntary military this is a red herring but fine, active duty military get the vote along with landowners and federal taxpayers.
Don’t know if you’ve seen my (many) anti-GWB posts where I make clear my disagreement with (recent) GOP administrations seeming hellbent on vindicating what was originally a leftie stereotype of the Republicans as the Party Of War. Spending a lot of money on foreign military adventures that do not directly or indirectly advance the sovereign interests of the U.S. is deeply unconservative in a lot of ways. It’s the neoconservative usurpation of the GOP that’s responsible for the permanent war mindset that GWB and others did, indeed, evince too much of.
You are playing so many sides of the fence at once it is difficult to keep up. “The federal game” does it or does it not include Social Security and Medicare? If it does, then payroll taxes are relevant, if it doesn’t then the size of government isn’t really growing. As a percentage of GDP, discretionary spending has decreased since the 60s.
I am not going to get into most of the partisan bickering that this thread is going to promote, but this statement is inaccurate.
There is a cap on Social Security payments that cuts in well before anyone with any sort of six figure income has earned one year’s salary while it takes a good bite out of any lower worker’s paycheck throughout their lives. The Social Security system is actually one of the most regressive taxes we have. Your claim is not accurate.
Those countries had excess capital from trade surpluses to dedicate to such purposes and to spend on the extravagances of duplicate public and private systems. And the other significant factor; the US is corrupt due to its Marxist government tendencies leading people to fraud to make a buck anyway they can to survive. ($60 billion in medicare fraud in the US annually according to the FBI)
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but as you state it, I would suggest that your assessment is off-base if only for the simple reason that the “landscape” includes two parties (and assorted others), but his article makes little to no attempt at an objective “how’d we get here” critique of both parties. The only criticisms he can bring himself to make of the Dems/liberals are of the Brer’ Rabbit variety – they’re just too doggone nice to play hardball on tendentious political language!
Really? Are those the only vices – being naively unable to play hardball – that the Dems have to answer for? A complete discussion of “the contemporary political landscape” would also have to involve the Democrats’ devotion to increasing the size of government spending (I know the GOP record of late is not any better), the corrupt thrall in which the unions hold the party, the intolerance of dissent on certain social issues (it’s a lot easier to be a national candidate as a pro-choice Republican than a pro-life Dem), and the questionable ethical behavior of one of their key congressional blocs (NYTimes Skewers Congressional Black Caucus Corruption - Jack & Jill Politics).
Social Security is paid for by taxes on paychecks. It has continuous income. It is by statute not allowed to raid the general fund or any other fund. it has a a few trillion sitting in T-bonds to smooth over the baby boomers time. it was designed to do that with the fund ending as the boomers died off.
Social Security is not in trouble for 30 years. Then it will pay 80 percent unless we change some of the funding. The eason it would pay 80 percent is because it is not allowed to hit the tax funds for full payments.
Right. So what you have just proved is that Marxism/Socialism is a better economic system, because Marxist/Socialist countries can generate trade surpluses to fund socialized medicine, while capitalist countries like the US cannot. So who is scraping bottom again?
Is that what you meant to prove?
Sorry, sir, not here, you’re on a DoD testing ground for defoliants.
Well, yeah they have skin in the game. They don’t want to lose their benefits.
tldr. Could the OP at least summarize the salient points? It’s nice that you agree with the article, but why do you agree with it?
More college graduates identify as Republicans than Democrats while the reverse is true for high school dropouts.
And their payroll taxes, which were collected to pay for Social Security, instead paid for tax cuts for the wealthy, who now don’t want to repay the loan.