Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(36,359 posts)
19. It's merged for a sense of proportion, if nothing else.
Sat Dec 7, 2024, 07:14 PM
Dec 7

And they're separate income taxes--that's all the tax that Congress has the authority to impose. It's just a specially-earmarked income tax with a different set of rules. But when you hear somebody say that we spend more on defense than X, it pays to have a handy chart that shows how much the federal government spends on X.

Since there are only income taxes and SS and Medicare are federal expenses, they belong on that chart and to leave them off helps confuse people. Calling some "income tax" and others "payroll" tax also obscures that they're both really taxes on income. One kind is fixed and flat with a cap; the other kind is fairly progressive with earned income credits, refundable and not, and a tangle of exemptions. The "payroll" taxes are on unadjusted gross income, as far as I'm aware (at least as far as I've personally run across as a taxpayer).

Also because when it comes to budget deficits, while they haven't been adding to the deficit (until they go in the red) they have been adding to the debt. Why? Because on paper their trust funds are assets held by the government that are simply paid out as their trust funds are liquidated--the asset is transferred on the books of the government from one agency to another agency, all neat and internally tidy. But since that liquidation is done without cash to pay for those reimbursements and following disbursements the only source of cash is debt--meaning that the government-internal debt becomes publicly held debt.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Increase the cap, problem solved. Emile Dec 7 #1
Yes WmChris Dec 7 #5
That'll work when we get a Democratic Prez and huge majorities in the House and Senate. Ain't gonna happen Silent Type Dec 7 #7
Yes increase the cap AverageOldGuy Dec 7 #14
That, and the fact that people with incomes over a certain amount choie Dec 7 #2
Because they don't/won't get higher benefits, for one reason. Silent Type Dec 7 #8
Yes, but, the high salaried people dugog55 Dec 7 #20
People die at their desks too. But you have a point. Silent Type Dec 7 #22
Al Gore was right. love_katz Dec 7 #3
That just isn't true. Captain Stern Dec 7 #17
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Dec 7 #4
K&R snot Dec 7 #6
Recall the 1983 fix to keep SS whole for 75 years Dave says Dec 7 #9
Require EVERYONE to contribute to SS regardless of income/wealth... everyone NotHardly Dec 7 #10
That would mean bye-bye CalPERS. Igel Dec 7 #18
What angers me The Madcap Dec 7 #11
A good question state of stupid Dec 7 #12
I just received a text message that seems suspicious. SleeplessinSoCal Dec 7 #13
It's the notification that your 2025 statement of benefits is ready. Got mine last week. sinkingfeeling Dec 7 #15
Thanks. SleeplessinSoCal Dec 7 #16
Got the same msg but had trouble logging in to login.gov vapor2 Dec 7 #21
It's merged for a sense of proportion, if nothing else. Igel Dec 7 #19
Because the funds were not placed in Al Gore's "lock box." Martin Eden Dec 8 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Social Security and Medic...»Reply #19