HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why are people receiving ...

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:30 AM

Why are people receiving social security having to pay taxes?

When large corporations and billionaires and millionaires paying zero in taxes? Democrats should message this to all seniors how they're being fleeced by the GOP.

68 replies, 2829 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why are people receiving social security having to pay taxes? (Original post)
duforsure Oct 11 OP
mahatmakanejeeves Oct 11 #1
smirkymonkey Oct 11 #5
Irish_Dem Oct 11 #12
mahatmakanejeeves Oct 11 #15
carpetbagger Oct 11 #20
mahatmakanejeeves Oct 11 #21
carpetbagger Oct 11 #35
MichMan Oct 11 #39
carpetbagger Oct 11 #42
Hassin Bin Sober Oct 11 #37
Igel Oct 11 #41
Hoyt Oct 11 #43
mahatmakanejeeves Oct 11 #44
Hassin Bin Sober Oct 11 #50
brooklynite Oct 11 #31
3Hotdogs Oct 11 #19
jimfields33 Oct 11 #29
Voltaire2 Oct 11 #59
Tribetime Oct 11 #23
Voltaire2 Oct 11 #58
PoliticAverse Oct 11 #2
duforsure Oct 11 #8
doc03 Oct 11 #16
Voltaire2 Oct 11 #60
doc03 Oct 11 #63
Voltaire2 Oct 12 #64
doc03 Oct 12 #67
PoliticAverse Oct 11 #62
Kaleva Oct 12 #68
rampartc Oct 11 #3
Sherman A1 Oct 11 #4
mopinko Oct 11 #6
Klaralven Oct 11 #7
CurtEastPoint Oct 11 #9
doc03 Oct 11 #11
DBoon Oct 11 #27
karynnj Oct 11 #10
BSdetect Oct 11 #13
halfulglas Oct 11 #14
fescuerescue Oct 11 #17
RicROC Oct 11 #32
fescuerescue Oct 11 #33
doc03 Oct 11 #48
Voltaire2 Oct 11 #61
fescuerescue Oct 12 #66
doc03 Oct 11 #18
leftstreet Oct 11 #38
snort Oct 11 #22
Midnight Writer Oct 11 #24
Happy Hoosier Oct 11 #25
jimfields33 Oct 11 #30
634-5789 Oct 11 #26
Sibelius Fan Oct 11 #28
former9thward Oct 11 #46
Sibelius Fan Oct 11 #52
former9thward Oct 11 #53
lagomorph777 Oct 11 #54
Sibelius Fan Oct 11 #55
SYFROYH Oct 11 #34
Mary in S. Carolina Oct 11 #36
Javaman Oct 11 #40
Mysterian Oct 11 #45
SayitAintSo Oct 11 #47
doc03 Oct 11 #49
GoodRaisin Oct 11 #51
Hortensis Oct 11 #56
Captain Stern Oct 11 #57
leftyladyfrommo Oct 12 #65

Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:31 AM

1. Because it's income. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:54 AM

5. Still bullshit.

Especially when the very rich skate on taxes. People who are receiving such low income should not have to pay taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:39 AM

12. The rich don't pay taxes on their income.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Irish_Dem (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:52 AM

15. Cite, please.

I'm trying to find as nonpartisan source as I can, but they all say pretty much the same thing. I provide a link to an Internal Revenue System publication.

Home > Research Topics > Economy & Work > Economic Policy > Taxes

OCTOBER 6, 2017

A closer look at who does (and doesn’t) pay U.S. income tax

BY DREW DESILVER

As Congress and the White House pivot from trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act to overhauling the U.S. tax code, it’s helpful to take a closer look at how the tax system works presently in the context of its recent history.

Individual income taxes are the federal government’s single biggest revenue source. In fiscal year 2017, which ended Sept. 30, the individual income tax was expected to bring in nearly $1.66 trillion, or about 48% of all federal revenues, according to the Office of Management and Budget. The corporate income tax was estimated to raise another $324 billion, or 9% of total federal revenue.

The rest of the federal government’s revenue comes from a mix of sources, including Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, excise taxes such as those on alcohol and gasoline, unemployment-insurance taxes, customs duties and estate taxes. Spending that’s not covered by taxes is paid for by borrowing.



The individual income tax is designed to be progressive – those with higher incomes pay at higher rates. A Pew Research Center analysis of IRS data from 2015, the most recent available, shows that taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more paid well over half (58.8%) of federal income taxes, though they accounted for only 4.5% of all returns filed (6.8% of all taxable returns).

By contrast, taxpayers with incomes below $30,000 filed nearly 44% of all returns but paid just 1.4% of all federal income tax – in fact, two-thirds of the nearly 66 million returns filed by people in that lowest income tier owed no tax at all. (The IRS tax data used here are estimates based on a stratified probability sample of all returns.)

Nearly all income tiers above $100,000 paid higher shares of total income tax in 2015 than they did in 2000 (though the shares for many high-income groups fell in the early 2000s, following enactment of major tax cuts in 2001 and 2003). For example, the $2 million-and-higher group paid 20.4% of all tax in 2015, up from 17.2% in 2000. The share for the $200,000-to-under-$500,000 group rose to 20.6% from 14.9%. Some of those shifts may be due to changes in the tax laws or to what’s known as “bracket creep” – the phenomenon in which inflation pushes people into higher tax brackets.

Effective tax rates – calculated as the total income tax owed divided by adjusted gross income – also rise with income. On average, taxpayers making less than $30,000 paid an effective rate of 4.9% in 2015, compared with 9.2% for those making between $50,000 and under $100,000 and 27.5% for those with incomes of $2 million or more.

But the system starts to lose its progressivity at the very highest levels: In 2015, the effective rate peaked at 29.3% for taxpayers in the $2 million-to-under-$5 million group, then fell to 28.8% for the $5 million-to-under-$10 million group and 25.9% for those making $10 million or more.

{snip}

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:46 AM

20. If you report the money you acquired as AGI.

That was what Trump's returns, the propublica leaked data, and others have shown. If you are rich, clearly getting richer by the day, and yet showing nothing on your AGI, no taxes. The standard way to do this is to put your money in a trust and live off loans from the trust, the trust can be shielded from taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to carpetbagger (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:49 AM

21. Obviously (or not), that technique is beyond my pay grade.

I'm looking at a Form 1040 on my computer. I can see line 11, adjusted gross income. I don't know how that trick works. I can't imagine that I'd need to know how that trick works anytime soon.

{edited} I see an article from Propublica about avoiding estate taxes. Is that what you mean?

More Than Half of America’s 100 Richest People Exploit Special Trusts to Avoid Estate Taxes

Secret IRS records show billionaires use trusts that let them pass fortunes to their heirs without paying estate tax. Will Congress end a tax shelter that has cost the Treasury untold billions?

by Jeff Ernsthausen, James Bandler, Justin Elliott and Patricia Callahan
Sept. 28, 10:45 a.m. EDT

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. The Secret IRS Files is an ongoing reporting project. Sign up to be notified when the next story publishes. Or text “IRS” to 917-746-1447 to get the next story texted to you (standard messaging rates apply).

Also: Do you have expertise in tax law, accounting or wealth management? We’d love to hear from you.


It’s well known, at least among tax lawyers and accountants for the ultrawealthy: The estate tax can be easily avoided by exploiting a loophole unwittingly created by Congress three decades ago. By using special trusts, a rarefied group of Americans has taken advantage of this loophole, reducing government revenues and fueling inequality.

There is no way for the public to know who uses these special trusts aside from when they’ve been disclosed in lawsuits or securities filings. There’s also been no way to quantify just how much in estate tax has been lost to them, though, in 2013, the lawyer who pioneered the use of the most common one — known as the grantor retained annuity trust, or GRAT — estimated they may have cost the U.S. Treasury about $100 billion over the prior 13 years.

As Congress considers cracking down on GRATs and other trusts to help fund President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, a new analysis by ProPublica based on a trove of tax information about thousands of the wealthiest Americans sheds light on just how widespread the use of special trusts to dodge the estate tax has become.

{snip}

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 10:10 AM

35. That's part of it, and has the same themes

There are other vehicles to avoid income tax on your way to avoid estate taxes. I don't know them very well, my tax avoidance schemes, even making pretty good money as a doctor with a government agency, are maxing out 401 contributions, a medical savings account for copays, and before Trump messed with the deductions, doing all my charity on alternate years (i.e., Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2015, then no charity in 2016 taking the standard deduction, since my mortgage interest has never been very high). I think the biggest way they do it is to invest everything in their companies (real or paper), then they live off loans from the company. Same general idea.

On edit: the AGI is line 11, their goal is to pump up line 10 with enough deductions to make line 11 zero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to carpetbagger (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 10:40 AM

39. So all I have to do is just enter zero for AGI when I fill out my 1040?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MichMan (Reply #39)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 11:09 AM

42. Yes, but us simpletons lack the capital needed to fluff up line 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 10:30 AM

37. Yet somehow the 400 richest families (which is a bracket tracked by the IRS) only pay 8.2%

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/23/americas-richest-400-families-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-average-taxpayer.html

America’s richest 400 families pay a lower tax rate than average taxpayer

The wealthiest 400 American families paid an 8.2% average rate on their federal individual income taxes from 2010 to 2018, according to a White House analysis published Thursday.

Those richest 400 families represent the top 0.0002% of all taxpayers, according to the White House report.

Their estimated tax rate, paid on $1.8 trillion of income over the nine-year period, is “low” relative to other taxpayers, according to the report, which was authored by economists in the Council of Economic Advisers and Office of Management and Budget.

By comparison, Americans paid an average 13.3% tax rate on their income in 2018, according to a Tax Foundation analysis. (This figure includes all taxpayers, including the wealthiest. It also doesn’t factor annual investment gains, as the White House report does to account for overall wealth.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #37)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 11:01 AM

41. Because nobody's watching how the definitions shift and flow in this thread.

That's how they do it.

We pay tax on income.

You're citing income tax paid by those with wealth.

At some point, you don't need the income. So you just let wealth appreciate. Even if it's in a trust, the trust can still be subject to taxes; the money put in the trust was taxed. When the money comes out of the trust it's taxed.

The way around that is to have the property placed in the trust. Then you don't need money taken out of the trust after all--you're sort of provided for discretely.

But then the trust pays property taxes and, when the house is sold, that's taxed. Inheritance taxes can be avoided, but still every cent removed from the trust is taxed. It's a clever way to avoid taxes, to average them and remove tax spikes, but it doesn't evade them.

My working class parents retired and set up a trust.

That's okay, though. Last year I paid the highest effective federal income tax rate I had in years, almost 8%. Usually it was around 6%. So, you know, that 8.2% was still higher than me (and our gross income last year was pushing $130k).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #37)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 11:10 AM

43. To be fair, that analysis includes increases in investments that have not been taxable since 1921.

"Our primary estimate of 8.2 percent is much lower than commonly cited estimates of top Federal individual income tax rates. For example, the Joint Committee on Taxation (2021) estimates that the 2021 Federal individual income tax rate on the top 0.4 percent of families ranked by income (i.e., the 715,000 families with income over $1 million) will be 26 percent.

"Our analysis differs by (a) analyzing a smaller group of families (the top 0.0002 percent) ranked by wealth, and (b) including unrealized capital gains income in the income measure. See the end of the technical appendix for additional discussion of how our analysis compares to commonly cited estimates."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/blog/2021/09/23/what-is-the-average-federal-individual-income-tax-rate-on-the-wealthiest-americans/

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/23/americas-richest-400-families-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-average-taxpayer.html


I do believe capital gains rates and estate taxes should be increased substantially.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #37)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 12:04 PM

44. What makes it the business of anybody in the White House to know how much income tax anyone paid?

NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #44)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 01:07 PM

50. So they can adjust policy stances? Is this a trick question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Irish_Dem (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:30 AM

31. I do. So do the "1%ers" I know in New York who help fund the DNC.

Last edited Mon Oct 11, 2021, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

What you meant to say is “rich people don’t pay enough in taxes” (I’ll agree) and “some rich people don’t pay any net taxes because of tax rules that Democratic Administrations didn’t change”.

As for Social Security, remember that it’s not a poor people’s income. It’s an income stream for everyone and thus should be taxable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:42 AM

19. No. It was Ronnie Raygun's and the Republican's economic program.

Interesting though, I don't pay tax on the part of my pension that I paid into the fund. That is because it was already taxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3Hotdogs (Reply #19)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:21 AM

29. The house was democratic the whole time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimfields33 (Reply #29)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:34 PM

59. Tip O'Neil takes 50% of the blame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:55 AM

23. But it's different it's something you paid into all your life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:32 PM

58. No it isn't.

It is not wages, not interest, not dividends.
Also not taxed at all until you have income over 32,000 if filing jointly.
Before 1984 or around there, ss benefits were not taxed at all. The tax thresholds were set as part of the truly horrible deal Tip O’Neil made with Reagan to reform social security. The level of course was not inflation adjusted so while it started as a tax on the well off it is now a shitty cut in benefits for just about everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:34 AM

2. Millionaires receiving Social Security shouldn't pay taxes on it? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:12 AM

8. No, billionaires and millionaires ,

Not on SS who pay zero in taxes..Yet people retired getting SS are taxed, which used to pay zero ion SS received.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:15 AM

16. I am a retired steelworker not a f--g millionaire and I pay tax on SS. The threshold for

taxing SS was set in 1983 at around $35000 for a single person and $70000 for a married couple. That was a lot
of money in 1983 adjusted for inflation that would now be $97,000 and $195,000. Eventually everyone getting SS
will be paying tax on it if it isn't adjusted for inflation. Next year we are to get around a 6% increase in SS that will
be taxed and Medicare will no doubt go up leaving us with virtually nothing left of the COLA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:37 PM

60. 44,000 joint filing

And you get hit with the 85% tax.

It is an additional tax on basically all ss recipients who have a 401k or IRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #60)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:41 PM

63. I wasn't home when I posted and couldn't remember exactly

what the threshold actually was. It is even worse than I thought. Yes I pay tax on all my pension
and IRA income which I have no problem with. But then I have to pay additional tax on my SS just because
I tried to give myself a decent retirement income. I believe last year I paid around an additional 30% on my
required minimum distribution from my IRA, because of that. Like I said give inflation in a few years most
everyone will be paying tax on 85% of their SS alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #63)

Tue Oct 12, 2021, 06:11 AM

64. I figured as much.

I’ve given up on our ability to fix any of this. Even when we win there is always enough opposition in our own party to block real change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #64)

Tue Oct 12, 2021, 07:16 AM

67. Like I said before I have brought this up every tax season

since 2003. We always get the same argument that millionaires should pay tax on SS. Myself I think it is wrong for anyone even millionaires to pay tax on what was a tax. But with inflation what seemed to be a lot of money back in 1983 is now far below the average income.
In another couple decades the average SS recipient will be paying tax on 85% of his SS. Since when did $35000 a year become rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:47 PM

62. You make a good argument why thresholds in the tax code should be indexed to inflation. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 12, 2021, 07:36 AM

68. I live on SSDI and don't get enough to pay taxes

I haven't had to pay taxes in years. One of the benefits of being just above the poverty line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:37 AM

3. a reagan era "reform"

passed by dem congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartc (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:49 AM

4. Yup

That is the correct answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:55 AM

6. they really shouldnt, but we arent gonna put that genie back in the bottle.

tho we could hike the threshold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:03 AM

7. It's a way of means testing Social Security benefits

The percentage of Social Security benefits subject to Federal income tax is graduated depending on your total income from other sources.

https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/taxes.html

Note also that the amount deducted from Social Security retirement benefits to pay for Medicare Part B also increases as your total income increases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:13 AM

9. Because of Saint Ronnie Fucking Raygun. GDMFSOB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CurtEastPoint (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:32 AM

11. Yes and Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan started taxing up

Last edited Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:06 AM - Edit history (1)

to 50% of SS income. Then Bill Clinton raised it to 85% I think. This started in 1983. There is a threshold of around $35000 for a single person and $70000 for a married couple. Once you surpass the threshold you start paying on your SS. The thing of it is that was set back in 1983 when $35000 or $70000 was a pretty high income. I am a retired steelworker. We deferred wage increases to get a pension when we retired and I saved money in a 401k now I am penalized for it. Last year I paid around $5000 in federal income tax on my SS. This may not affect that many people now but if the threshold is never raised for inflation most everyone will be paying.

Adjusted for inflation those thresholds would now be $97000 and $195000!

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CurtEastPoint (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:19 AM

27. yep

a step towards dismantling the new deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:28 AM

10. Because they may have enough other income that causes them to pay taxes

In addion if income is high enough, you pay taxes on up to 85 percent of your social security payment,


Let us say someone has an annunity paying $120,000 a year, a pension paying $50,000 and maximum social security because they earned more than the cap for years, shouldn't this lucky, but made up person pay taxes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:48 AM

13. With no real allowance for inflation the income limits are really outrageous.

It's a form of hidden tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 07:49 AM

14. Because since the 80s Democrats compromise when Republicans become obstinate.

The Republicans demand we become "reasonable," but afterwards they and the MSM still paint us as the "radicals."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:18 AM

17. Tax money is necessary to fund social security and other programs

Everyone has to pay a little, otherwise no one gets anything.

It's all a big circle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:48 AM

32. That SS money is money that was already taxed during the working years.

Talk about double taxation. The amount received by some people is already too low, and yes, it's based on their lifetime income. Which means, they were scraping for cash their whole lives and it perpetuates into their non- working years.

In the whole scheme of the economy, they were productive members of society and should finally be rewarded for their efforts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RicROC (Reply #32)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:51 AM

33. That's the way it works

Pretty much all money gets taxed multiple times.

I do think that SS money should be tax free.

But it has been taxed for decades across Republican and Democratic administrations.

My favorite story around this when my friend worked for the IRS.

"It's so dumb. I get paid by the IRS. But on the same paycheck. they are "nope! we are keeping that part!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 12:59 PM

48. SS is a tax we are paying a tax on a tax. I paid into SS all my life every payday

to give me an income when I retire now I pay tax on my own money I paid into it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fescuerescue (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 06:38 PM

61. That money does not fund SS.

It is income tax and goes into general revenue.

Next excuse?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #61)

Tue Oct 12, 2021, 06:34 AM

66. excuse for what?


Did you think that I make the tax laws for the last 4 decades?

You have the wrong person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:22 AM

18. I have brought this subject up every year since 2003 here on DU. But if it doesn't affect

someone personally they don't give a f--. The threshold for paying tax on SS tax was set in 1983 at $35000
for a single and $70000 for a married couple and has never been adjusted for inflation. Those numbers would now be
$97,000 and $195,000 adjusted for inflation. F-- these people that say we are millionaires. Eventually everyone will be paying on their SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #18)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 10:33 AM

38. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 08:50 AM

22. It's strange, so it must make the repukes happy.

Like paying an employee cash and then saying "Now hand some of that back".

Sounds like a way to reduce the amount of payout while making it look like you're totally not reducing the amount of payout. Or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:02 AM

24. When Reagan cut taxes on the rich, it made a budget shortfall. Simple solution? Tax SS.

More of the voodoo economics that we all still suffer from today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:03 AM

25. You can thank Ronny Raygun for that!

Republican assholes….

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happy Hoosier (Reply #25)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:23 AM

30. Take a look at the congress when it passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:05 AM

26. I've been asking that for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:20 AM

28. Because of Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sibelius Fan (Reply #28)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 12:25 PM

46. Who was in charge of Congress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #46)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 01:21 PM

52. Tip O'Neill, who naively decided that the Ds should give Reagan's policies a chance

since his electoral margin was so wide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sibelius Fan (Reply #52)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 01:58 PM

53. Tip O'Neill was anything but naive.

And there have been multiple times since then Congress could have changed those policies if they had wanted to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sibelius Fan (Reply #28)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 02:13 PM

54. Exactly. He needed $$$ for Star Wars and took it from Seniors.

It makes no sense for the Government to send you a check, then make you send some of it back. If you want to stiff Seniors, just reduce the check. Cut out the SSA and IRS loop and overhead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #54)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 03:04 PM

55. Reagan also made unemployment benefits taxable.

You’re out of work, you’re getting a government check equal to maybe a third of your normal pay, you’ve lost your employer-provided healthcare. I know, let’s tax those benefits so we can give tax breaks to billionaires!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 09:57 AM

34. It doesn't have to be that way. If there is other income to tax, go after that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 10:26 AM

36. Because of Reagan

It was non taxable until Reagan decided to tax the poor and give to the rich....trickle down economics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 10:51 AM

40. because just like there are two forms of justice in this nation: one for the rich and one for poor

there are two tax systems.

one heavily benefits the wealthy (loop holes, tax shelters, off shore accounts, trusts, etc), the other one fucks the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 12:14 PM

45. Because we have a war machine much, much larger than we need

We can't have nice things because half of our national wealth goes to the greedy war pigs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 01:05 PM

49. It is easy to blame RR but truth is RR started out with up to 50% of

SS and Bill Clinton increased it to 85%. So there is blame to go around on both sides. I made a comment a while
back about Bill Clinton being the best _______president we ever had and it was removed for breaking rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 01:08 PM

51. Because the plutocracy doesn't have enough luxury homes and yachts

and airplanes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 03:22 PM

56. Taxation of SS recipients other income is reasonable. It's the tax avoidance

of the wealthy that's not. Imo, allowing it by not voting to stop it, etc, is shameful, then complaining...where's my bat! As for complaining it's not fair that ordinary workers don't get to avoid taxes like the wealthy...

Imo, meeting our responsibiities to society is an honor and a duty. That we uphold our part of the social contract we benefit from is something to be proud of.

Everyone should pay their way, subject to their abilities. Personal income in the pockets of the wealthy should be taxed every bit as much as in our pockets, and taxed more as the good of society requires (see below!). But not less. Business taxes, maybe we can do some trading (often!) -- 300,000,000 citizens on one side of the table, 100,000 on the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Mon Oct 11, 2021, 03:28 PM

57. Why shouldn't they?

I think I'm maybe not understanding your question.

I'm pretty sure that most people understand that reaching the age where you receive social security benefits doesn't automatically mean we don't have to pay taxes.

I agree that there are a lot of folks that should be paying more taxes than they are, but I've never thought I should pay zero when I get to the age where I get social security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duforsure (Original post)

Tue Oct 12, 2021, 06:31 AM

65. I don't pay taxes. I don't even file. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread