I think it's also akin to the withholding tax. If people had to write a check every year, there would be outrage to the amount people are actually paying. Instead, they are grateful for the government "giving" them a tax refund!
> "This statement, however, is obviously untrue since, if one cares to move one's eyes slightly down the page at the Tax Policy Center web site, one will find that 73.1 percent of all tax units (in 2015) do pay either federal income taxes or federal payroll taxes. In other words, plenty of people who don't pay the "income tax" pay taxes on income via the payroll tax. That income tax is assessed at a flat and regressive rate of more than 15 percent, once both worker and employer shares are included. (The employer share negatively impacts the employees' wages, of course.) In 2014, payroll taxes combined for a total of 34 percent of all federal revenues in 2014, or one trillion dollars. (Those who don't get a paycheck pay the aptly-named "self-employment tax" in its place.)"
Bullshit. The government bond traded for SS and Medicare funds is not sold on the open market. It has got zero to do with the risk free rate of return. The government can default on all SS and Medicare payments without affecting any bond holders.
It shouldn't even have to hold bonds, it's a closed system, so why exactly? The Social Security system is funded by the current active population, and the beneficiaries are the inactives of past generations.
Sure, it's great that in theory your payroll tax is converted into a bond, and then when you retire they sell it and pay you from that, but ... that's not what's happening in the big picture, because if there's surplus then it just lowers the yearly deficit in the federal budget. (As it happened for years, but the fund will be depleted around 2034.)
>The Social Security system is funded by the current active population, and the beneficiaries are the inactives of past generations.
You start looking at it hard and the pyramid shape begins to appear.
I'm young enough that I plan my retirement assuming 0 money from Social Security despite the vast amounts I pay in. I see it as wealth redistribution from the young to the old who are already better off.
Using your numbers, that means 40 million aren't in poverty receiving it, while there are 7 million non-elderly receiving it who are kept out of poverty.
My claim, if I make it a bit more wordy is that the elderly receiving social security have more wealth on average than those paying into it. To be a bit more exact, I was referencing those young enough to not be receiving it anytime soon. I didn't exactly give an age range, but we can go to the following site and see some interesting findings.
For example, $10k for a 25-29 year old was about the 50 percentile. For someone 65+, it is the 12 percentile. You can try a number of data points and see that the trend is that the older have more wealth.
>Because most of them are just kept out of poverty by social security.
Most? Even with the worst numbers, it is only around 2/5 of the elderly who receive it.
Social security is a large regressive tax. It is generally paid by younger people who have less wealth and goes to older people who have more wealth.
"Government debt of the United States is typically issued in the form of U.S. Treasury securities. These securities—simply called Treasuries—are widely regarded to be the safest investments because they lack significant default risk. Therefore, it is no surprise that investors turn to U.S. Treasuries during times of increased uncertainty as a safe haven for their investments. This happened once again during the recent financial crisis. In fact, the increase in the demand for Treasuries was sufficiently large so that prices actually rose with an increase in the supply of government securities."
"The Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities. Like the Treasury bills, notes, and bonds purchased by private investors around the world, the Treasury securities that the trust funds hold are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The U.S. government has never defaulted on its obligations, and investors consider U.S. government securities to be one of the world’s safest investments."
"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.
In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash."
Special issues are literally more valuable than gold, backed by the taxing authority of the US government.
"The US government lends itself SS and Medicare funds"
And that should have NEVER been legal. That money should have stayed in the funds. Any growth from those funds should still be in the funds. If they had not effectively stolen the money for other uses, those programs would not be in the mess they are in now.
The US government borrowing is how that money is invested. If you're upset it was all spent on wars and the military and not on productive uses, that's a governance problem; hold your reps accountable.
Yeah, zero FEDERAL income tax but most of those pay for SS, Medicare, and state taxes. Those in a lump sum vs withholdings would still be a different experience.
That's not withholding though (as the parent referred to; withholding towards your federal income tax bill); as you mention, that's payroll taxes, which you're going to get in retirement back as entitlements.
Consider what would happen if the IRS was efficient enough (through these automated tax accounting systems) to not get an interest free loan from working America for an entire year (ie dynamically modifying every pay period how much was collected in federal tax withholding based on estimated total year tax liability); the federal government would have to be more judicious about its cash flow.
You'd think that's something Republicans and small government advocates could get behind. Go figure. "Fiscal conservatives" in name only.
EDIT: For the pedantic: s/IRS/US Treasury/ in my comment.
"IRS gets a loan" is metaphorically true in a sense but really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The IRS doesn't actually get money from taxpayers at all. The IRS is just the bureaucracy that determines things. The money that you "pay" in federal taxes is just dollars that are deleted out of existence so that the dollars created by federal spending don't create inflation.
The federal government's "cash flow" is made up entirely of creating dollars out of nothing by spending and deleting dollars out of existence by taxing. The federal government doesn't "have" dollars.
> The money that you "pay" in federal taxes is just dollars that are deleted out of existence so that the dollars created by federal spending don't create inflation.
No, it's not. Federal government revenue is real revenue, federal government borrowing is real borrowing, and federal government spending is real spending. The Federal Reserve creates and destroys money, but that monetary action is separate from the fiscal action of government revenue, borrowing, and spending.
Yes, spending is real spending, but no taxes are not revenue. Read the link I posted. This isn't that hard to understand. The entire concept of federal budget is a balance between "revenue" and spending in order to keep the monetary supply stable. But seriously, just read the link, you don't seem to understand the basic facts I'm expressing.
I read it, and the point you are using it to support is still not true; the government could, Constitutionally, do what you describe (and what the linked article is part of the author's failed Senatorial campaign advocating), but it doesn't, for the same reason that the Fed exists; moneterizing spending and not unlinking fiscal from monetary policy undermines faith in the currency.
> But seriously, just read the link, you don't seem to understand the basic facts I'm expressing.
There's a difference between not understanding your claims and their relation to reality and disagreeing with the first and with your assessment of the second.
Money is fungible. It doesn't make sense to say that these dollars that "disappear" are completely separate from these other dollars that magically "appear" out of nowhere. In real terms (we'll call it wealth, but you can call it purchasing power, or whatever other term you want to use for what dollars represent or enable), the wealth the US government spends comes from the actual people who get taxed, in the proportion in which they are taxed, plus the extra provided by inflation, which comes from everyone who holds dollars.
Yeah, but that's not contrary to what I'm saying. The real point is that the question of how much "revenue" in taxation vs spending is more of a matter of policy and purchasing power etc. to further economic and social goals and not something that has any inherent need to balance out.
> The money that you "pay" in federal taxes is just dollars that are deleted out of existence so that the dollars created by federal spending don't create inflation.
Does it mean that taxation in another country is different than taxation in US? Especially in a country where local currency has a fixed exchange rate to US dollar? They presumably can't create money that easily.
The same cycle goes around in other countries, the fixed exchange rate (it's called "pegged to the dollar") means that the central bank has to do open market transactions (on/in foreign exchange market venues) to achieve that fixed ratio.
That means that in case the rate of inflation, economic growth, balance of accounts of foreign trade, etc. differs between the particular country's and the corresponding metric of the USA, then they will have to act. (Of course it's not a top-to-bottom thing, but it's directly influenced by forex markets, therefore there are a lot of speculation when central banks try to maintain a fixed ratio of anything to whatever. [You might remember when the CHF/EUR ratio started to go haywire and the Swiss central bank intervened ... and then suddenly stopped that intervention.])
Yes, it's TOTALLY different. The U.S. power globally is EXTREMELY tied to the use of the dollar internationally. Everyone else who uses dollars (or has currency pegged to the dollar) is under major economic control and influence of the U.S. Oil priced in dollars is huge.
When the U.S. left the gold standard it was giant fuck you to all the countries who held dollars and could no longer exchange them for gold. The U.S. maintains and exercises military power globally in part to protect the dominance of the dollar.
Note also that state/local taxes in the U.S. are completely different from federal because they can't just make dollars and can only spend dollars received through taxes (which are not deleted in that case) or received from federal spending (or in some cases through the state itself doing business in the market).
Taxation works pretty much the same way everywhere. The central banks are separate entities in any modern state/economy/monetary zone. The federal and state/local taxes are the same. The federal government takes on debts like states. You might remember the brouhaha about the debt ceiling and the big sequester in the past few years.
The Bretton Woods system was doomed to fail anyhow, it was a nice try to help the non-US post-war economies, but obviously as soon as some problem arose in the US (looming rise in unemployment), the system fell apart.
The petrodollar thing is real, but it's not important. The US import-export is enormous, the trade with China/India and the EU has a lot more influence on the dollar than oil interests. (And thus conversely the US power structure won't use the US central bank to try to exert power, because it'd fuck up its own economy the fastest - because the US benefits the most from global trade.)
Are you actually aware of the points in the link I posted?
The import/export issue is real in the sense that Chinese folks holding U.S. dollars could buy up lobbyists and land and such in the U.S. if we let them. It's not real in the sense that we could, if we wanted, just give every U.S. citizen an extra $50,000 to dilute the buying power of foreign holders of dollars. That would be aggressive for sure, but we have the power to do that. It's a complex set of arrangements here.
Yes, the U.S. benefits the most from the current arrangement, so we aren't interested in screwing that up. But we could and would take action if the foreign-held dollars started getting used in ways that were bad enough for us to do something about it.
"which you're going to get in retirement back as entitlements."
I doubt it. By the time I retire I expect that SS will be bankrupt. It has been going further down that road for years, and I don't see anything stopping the train.
There is NO SUCH THING as SS bankruptcy. It makes NO SENSE as a concept at all. It's a complete fiction. There is NO scenario in which the federal government can't just cash every SS check.
The number of US citizens that pay federal income tax is closer to 35%. All forms of income tax ought be abolished. A consumption tax of around 18% would provide the same federal revenue. It would simplify tax reporting (i.e. reduce expenditures on tax reporting), and increase the tax base (people living on trust funds would pay in at a higher rater). Look into the "Fair Tax" for a well reasoned proposal for such a tax.
> Federal "revenue" is a mistaken concept. The federal government just deletes money via taxation in order to offset the created money from spending. The government doesn't need or have any dollars, they are the source of the fiat currency in itself.
Does it mean that taxation in USA works differently than taxation in a country with currency tied to US dollar by a fixed exchange rate? In that country government can't, I assume, so easily print money and delete them.
Are you counting non-earners like kids and retired folks in that 35%?
Federal "revenue" is a mistaken concept. The federal government just deletes money via taxation in order to offset the created money from spending. The government doesn't need or have any dollars, they are the source of the fiat currency in itself.
The entire point of any tax or spend decisions is to further some political objective. For example, we tax everyone in order to assure the fiat currency has value. We also tax to discourse certain behaviors. We tax to have some impact on who has how many dollars in order to address social issues.
And sales taxes. And all sorts of fees to various governments. And parking tickets. And a host of fees associated with the criminal justice system. And lotteries/gambling. And and and. Nobody pays zero tax, except perhaps the most very wealthy "persons" (ie corporations) able to carry over bad years and write down previous losses/taxes against future income.
You've gone totally off the reservation. My argument was simply against parent's statement that Americans would be shocked if they saw their tax bill; I'll reiterate; hardly. A little less than half of America pays no federal income tax (after refunds are accounted for).
I can't find a reputable source for this. A google search comes up with sources like Breitbart. The top source is marketwatch, which I can't remember if they've a slant or not. Even in that, it mentions that, "Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax". Of course, it includes a chart, but considering the other sources in the first page results, I'm not sure I can trust this source.
No. Social security is only taxed on your first $127,200 of annual income. Anything over that is not assessed social security tax. Medicare is 1.45% of your income with no limit, and an additional 0.9% on income over $200k/year. I'm unsure where you would get the idea that those rates increase as your income increases.
I was replying to someone who was saying that 45% of workers pay no Federal income tax, so the upper limit did not enter into consideration. For the mathematical concept of direct variation, which I meant, but did not quite explicitly call out, see: https://www.freemathhelp.com/direct-variation.html
> If people had to write a check every year, there would be outrage to the amount people are actually paying.
Historically the french have done pretty much that.
In fact it was even more painful as the historical method was to provide advance payments by thirds (IIRC the first two thirds would be based on your tax estimate, and the last one would be the net, or a reimbursement in case of misestimation) so you'd send the taxman a check 3 times a year (or go to the bank for a wire).
No more outrage than most anywhere else, just a lot of wasted time and necessity to plan for and remember to send your advance payments.
Yeah, the psychology of that is fascinating. I don't give the bureaucrats credit for doing it for that reason though. I think they did it because they wanted the cash flow earlier. Nonetheless, it does a wonderful job at making people grateful that they've been given the gift of having a portion of the money that was taken from them returned.
