So far, my "overall point is bankrupt", my "analysis is just dead wrong", I am in some kind of hole I need to dig myself out of, and the point I attempted to defend is "pretty disingenuous". Ok, may we proceed?
The original point is this: "There's a potentially dangerous line that the US is approaching where... a majority of the population will not be paying income taxes at all." That statement contains two contentions: 1) the US is approaching the line where 50% of the population will be paying no income tax at all, 2) this is potentially dangerous.
The first contention hasn’t been disputed. The second is what I believe we are debating.
You interject that the whole discussion ("the income tax debate") is "misleading"/"disingenuous" because it doesn’t consider payroll taxes - something that "lower middle-class people" pay a disproportionate amount of (relative to their income) compared to "wealthy people.'
I attempted to point out that payroll tax isn’t really relevant to the question because everyone pays the same rate up until the point that the tax is capped, which is commensurate with the point at which the benefits are capped.
I will give you that $100,000 per year isn’t all that "wealthy." And I'll give you the following: A person making $500,000 will pay 2.77% of wages in payroll tax (6.2% of the first $106,800, plus 1.45% of total wages). A person making $200,000 will pay 4.76% (same rules). People making $20,000 and $100,000, will both pay 7.65% (same rules).
If I am wrong that the employee pays half of the payroll tax (7.65%) and the employer pays the other half (another 7.65%) please let me know. However, I don’t feel it is relevant to the central question under debate.
I don’t feel your point about payroll taxes is significant enough to dismiss the question about income taxes. Is the 50% threshold "potentially dangerous" or not?
The person the government sends the tax bill to is rarely the person whose wealth is reduced by the tax. Since all employers must pay payroll tax, there are few practical alternatives for earning a living (inelastic supply of labor), and employers are price-sensitive and will employ fewer people if they cost more (elastic demand for labor), even the employer's portion of the tax comes from wealth that would've gone to the employees.
The original point is this: "There's a potentially dangerous line that the US is approaching where... a majority of the population will not be paying income taxes at all." That statement contains two contentions: 1) the US is approaching the line where 50% of the population will be paying no income tax at all, 2) this is potentially dangerous.
The first contention hasn’t been disputed. The second is what I believe we are debating.
You interject that the whole discussion ("the income tax debate") is "misleading"/"disingenuous" because it doesn’t consider payroll taxes - something that "lower middle-class people" pay a disproportionate amount of (relative to their income) compared to "wealthy people.'
I attempted to point out that payroll tax isn’t really relevant to the question because everyone pays the same rate up until the point that the tax is capped, which is commensurate with the point at which the benefits are capped.
I will give you that $100,000 per year isn’t all that "wealthy." And I'll give you the following: A person making $500,000 will pay 2.77% of wages in payroll tax (6.2% of the first $106,800, plus 1.45% of total wages). A person making $200,000 will pay 4.76% (same rules). People making $20,000 and $100,000, will both pay 7.65% (same rules).
If I am wrong that the employee pays half of the payroll tax (7.65%) and the employer pays the other half (another 7.65%) please let me know. However, I don’t feel it is relevant to the central question under debate.
I don’t feel your point about payroll taxes is significant enough to dismiss the question about income taxes. Is the 50% threshold "potentially dangerous" or not?