NCAAbbs

Since you believe in income re-distribution, what income level should have their income taxes raised?

Your income level.

Taxes should be FAIRLY assessed indexed to the current REAL value of money on those who receive it. The wealthy and super wealthy should not be taxed at 10 to 15% due to the structure of their income while middle or lower are taxed at 25-30% since ALL their income is wages or salary. Just because $20,000 per year was a substantial income in the past, doesn't mean it should be considered as such today when it is actually below the "Poverty income" line for a family of four. Social Security contributions still cut off at $90,000 per year when that is today only lower Middle Class income. If that had always been indexed to current real value of money, what would it be today and would we still be worried about the SSA running out of money at some future date?
American tax payers are taxed according to how much lobbying their interest group can do in Congress (interest rates from credit institutions work the same way) and the sympathy they have from the ruling Executive Branch. Since these lobbyists spend on both party's members, neither party is going to ignore them. After all, they ALL have to have funds when re-election time comes around.

$90k is lower middle class? What city are you living in? My dad makes a little more than that and we're firmly in the middle class, maybe even upper middle.

I thought I heard BHO say yesterday that he wouldn't raise taxes on people making under 75k. Then, based upon your '90k is lower middle income', it sounds like he will be raising taxes on the middle class. I thought that's why Dems liked BHO, b/c he promised not to hurt the middle class.

BTW, I'm going to be pi$$ed if BHO increases SS tax income limits, pi$$ed I tell you.

90k is nothing like "lower middle class", not from where I sit. I have a hard time calling a family making 100k middle class even with the way prices have risen.

As to Social Security, my personal opinion is that they should take one of two tacks on it - if you have income/assets above a given number you can't claim a Social Security pension, or you can but you pay Social Security tax on your entire income. I do, why shouldn't you? It's like saying you shouldn't tax capital gains as income. Money in your pocket is money in your pocket - adjust the rates, fine, but it's still income any way you cut it.

The biggest difference is that capital gains are by a huge margin income of the well off, and they have enough influence to keep their taxes low... well, that and the guys writing the tax laws tend to be in the same boat.

There's a middle class?

As to Social Security, my personal opinion is that they should take one of two tacks on it - if you have income/assets above a given number you can't claim a Social Security pension, or you can but you pay Social Security tax on your entire income. I do, why shouldn't you? It's like saying you shouldn't tax capital gains as income. Money in your pocket is money in your pocket - adjust the rates, fine, but it's still income any way you cut it.
The biggest difference is that capital gains are by a huge margin income of the well off, and they have enough influence to keep their taxes low... well, that and the guys writing the tax laws tend to be in the same boat.
[/quote]

When SS was set up, the program was based on a person having "his/her money" in the SS fund. If it had been set up like other programs, as a straight tax, they might get away with denying pay outs to higher income folks. That is not the premise under which it was established. People are told it remains "their money" while the government holds it for your "old age" and then pays it back plus interest. Originally, you paid income taxes on only the "new money" that the government contributed since you had paid taxes on your gross income before FICA was deducted.
The actuarial tables used at the time showed the "average" retiree at 65 would live just two years. This, of course, was in the 1930s when modern drugs were just becoming important, and no one imagined large numbers living twenty to thirty years on retirement, much less a healthy one.
The Minimum Wage began in 1938 at 25 cents per hour for a 48 hour week. Since many workers in the south were making an average of 5 to 15 cents per hour for labor, it was a major and welcome increase. My dad worked for his dad at American Casting Co on 10th Ave North, and told me of paying a college grad engineer 75 cents per hour and he bragged about it to his brother over Sunday dinner. His brother worked for US Steel and asked for a similar raise (he was at 65 cents per hour). The manager drove all the way from Fairfield to East B'ham to raise Hell with dad for "breaking the wage line" for engineers in the Jeffco area.
Women in southern textile mills were making 5 cents per hour into the mid-30s and working a six 12 hour days per week.