Social Security versus Tax Revenue & Flat Tax?

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > Social Security versus Tax Revenue and Flat Tax?

Displaying all 2 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2011-01-23 11:13 AM

LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299

I was looking at the Federal Budget and saw something interesting:

If you look at FY 09, Social Security revenue was $654 Billion and income tax revenue was $915 Billion.

If FY 10 SS revenue was $635 Billion and Income Tax revenue was $951 Billion.

What I find interesting is that Social Security taxes are only 12.4% of the first $106,000, while the income taxes are graduated with a top tax rate of 35%.

It looks to me that if we had a flat rate income tax of about 12% with no deductions or cap, we would get about the same revenue that we get now.

Am I way off here?

2011-10-16 10:53 AM

sreed
Not Selected
Posts: 7

Not way off. You would actually increase revenue because you would free up cash, close loop holes and have everone who recieves, buys and sells. The difference is that the tax burden wouldn't be put on the shoulders percentage wise on small business and middle class. The poor would pay back on what they receive and the rich would pay on all income including Wall Street revenue.
The concept that all corporations are greedy is obsurd.At the end game what is accomplished on the guy who sits on cash? How does that help him?
Why don't we give 100% tax break on companies that spend 80% or so in cash reserves back into jobs creation or reinvestments spent here in the U.S.? What do you care what they spend it on in general? If it is reused here instead of exchanging it in foriegn currency we all win. If the incintive is to grow a business and hire people who will in turn spend the money back into the system. There is over a trillion dollars of U.S. currency overseas that companies have sat on or exchanged because the penality here is too steep. If its a morale issue of them making money and getting the best for themselves as opposed to giving it to government to decide how to waste it then I'm gonna have to side with the you earn it your decide crowd. For those who feel that others should pay more because they have it to give then it should always start with you. Hey Ted Turner gave away 1/3 of his assets got the tax break and still ended up with more cash because his tax liabilities were pulling him in a direction that made more sensne to let them go. Now more people are unemployed as those companies were left to stand alone or his backing was taken away. See the one time deal has helped him and his wealth overall but has screwed you Johnny tax payer.
We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. What's considered poor in this country living on welfare, section 8, free education and free health care, as bad as it seems is still above middle class in most countries. Get this. They don't even contribute back to the system in almost noway never. Yet its the correct thing to do. Let's create generation after generation of handouts.
I don't want to take a safety net away from Americans but there should be a time and scale limitations. If the tax payers foot the bill for the birh of any of your children the rest are on you. If you are on welfare and don't receive prenatal and postnatal care the tax payers will spend the last dime on you with tying your tubes. If you are a man who doesn't take care of the first child then you get snipped.

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES