<p>polarscribe I assume that some day you plan to use SS and medicare? So yes they are completely different from income taxes for which you recieve no specific benefit. If you are married with two children(standard used) as a Park Ranger you pay very little federal income taxes. The average salary is around 45-55k (unless you are a supervisor) and at that income most are paying almost no taxes. This is a fact not an opinion. If you are single you would pay more. The postings on here are really something. Garland is arguing that the NYT isn’t a progressive newspaper. Well here is the UCLA study that shows the data. </p>
<p>[In Table 3 we list the estimates of cm, the adjusted ADA scores for media outlets. The ordering of the scores is largely consistent with conventional wisdom. For instance, the two most conservative outlets are the Washington Times and Fox News’ Special Report, two outlets that are often called conservative (e.g. see Alterman, 2003). Near the liberal end are CBS Evening News and the New York Times. Again, these are largely consistent with the conventional wisdom.] </p>
<p>Also notice that the news pages of the WSJ are even more liberal than the NYT but with a very conservative editorial page. At any rate it was a very good study and widely accepted to be accurate.</p>
<p>BillyMc the discussion about world poverty is just another strawman. Yes most of the world is poor and we all wish there was something that could be done about it. China is doing it by the way.</p>
<p>lookingforward the 47% paying no fed income taxes is correct and comes from the data published by the US Gov’t.</p>
<p>Um, no, SAY, that’s not how it works. Medicare, FICA, payroll, etc. are taxes. I pay them whether or not I want to, and may never use any of them. (I have never claimed unemployment, for example.)</p>
<p>The visitor center where I work charges $3 for admission. It’s a user fee - if you don’t want to pay, you don’t have to come in. Simple as that. I invite you to try and not pay Medicare/FICA/payroll taxes. The IRS would have a few words for you, likely ending with your Miranda rights. That’s a tax.</p>
<p>You can twist language all you want, but those are taxes which I have no choice but to pay, on pain of fine and imprisonment. Actually, I couldn’t not pay them if I wanted to - they’re taken out of my check before I ever see it. Oddly enough, USDA doesn’t allow me to be a tax evader ;)</p>
<p>polarscribe is health insurance a tax? How about disability insurance? You are completely wrong and should acknowledge your mistake rather than compound it. This is not about opinions. SS and medicare were set up specifically not to be a welfare program and paying for it is not a tax. I’m not sure how old you are but soon enough the gov’t will send you a letter telling you what benefit you can expect when you retire. This benefit is assigned to you and you alone and can also provide benefits to your dependent children. When you pay income taxes, state taxes, gas taxes etc you get no promised benefit for the future. Who exactly do you think should pay for the SS and Medicare benefit you will someday receive? If you are married or do get married you will likely approach in time the 90th% of income currently about 125k. Shouldn’t you pay for your own benefits? That is how this tread began though it’s far off topic now. The point I made is that it makes no rational sense to have a system that gives FA to people in the 92% of income but yet forces people at the 96% to pay the full price. FA should only be for the poor.</p>
<p>Health insurance would be a tax if I was forced to buy it. I’m actually in favor of a tax-funded universal health care system, but I’m not going to pretend that those payments are anything other than a tax.</p>
<p>Social Security and Medicare are tax-supported entitlement programs. Seniors who never paid a dime in Medicare taxes are benefiting from the program. This is as it should be. I have no problem with my taxes paying for those programs. It’s part of the social contract. But don’t try and tell me I don’t pay taxes.</p>
<p>Again, I invite you to try and “opt out” of paying Medicare, Social Security and payroll taxes. The nice civil servants at the IRS will have something to say about that. You don’t get a choice - that’s a tax.</p>
<p>The problem is the absurd run-up in sticker prices. Almost nobody can afford $50,000 per year for college. That number is simply nuts - it’s $5,000 more than the median pre-tax family income in America.</p>
<p>You like many Americans pay very little in federal taxes. I’m not saying your job isn’t important or that you aren’t a fine American. But the facts are the facts. Obamacare does in fact force you to buy healthcare. Listen you might be all of 26 or 27 so I don’t want to be harsh but seniors benefitting from Medicare without paying anything into the program it is one of the reasons Medicare is trillions in the red and can’t possibly be funded in it’s current form. The key take away point is that while you strongly favor all the entitlements you yourself are paying almost nothing to fund the programs you so strongly support.</p>
<p>Hey now I agree with you. I wish I had seen your last post before I made mine. The real problem is the cost that is completely disconnected from the value of the degree.</p>
<p>Let’s get back to original topic which was that the current system rewards bad behavior and punishes responsible familes. Here is an entire thread telling people exactly how to do it.</p>
<p>The top 1% of American households owns 42% of all the wealth in this country, so it rather stands to reason that they pay the majority of taxes. The bottom 80% collectively own 7% of the wealth - so, they really can’t pay anything more.</p>
<p>Medicare and Social Security can be funded quite easily. Just cut back on military spending and the billions of dollars we’re pouring into war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Raise taxes back to pre-Bush levels and raise the income cap on SS.</p>
<p>But now we’re really digressing, so I’ll stop there :)</p>
<p>polarscribe I respect all political views but those are very different and complex topics. SS can be worked out but Medicare is hopeless in it’s current form. Are you aware that each retired couple in America will on average receive a total of one million dollars in benefits from the combination of SS and Medicare which is far in excess of the money they paid into the system. Who is going to pay for this? If you taxed everyone above 250K at 100% it still wouldn’t come close to balancing the federal budget. Everything I just said is a fact not an opinion and fully supported by gov’t data.</p>
<p>*That’s completely misleading, mom2collegekids. Income taxes are far from the only “fed taxes.” Payroll and FICA taxes are also federal taxes and are paid by everyone who earns a wage or is self-employed. Pretending that they somehow “don’t count” doesn’t change the fact that I’m paying them.
*</p>
<p>Well, it’s federal payroll taxes that are funding Pell and other federal student aid. That’s why SAY was probably referring to federal payroll taxes.</p>
Hm, and you think you know what strawman actually means? You see, I was responding to a poster who said that the only thing that matters is how much of your income is disposable after living expenses, so I provided three examples (only one outside of the US) to address that. It was not a logical fallacy; repeatedly accusing others of imagined fallacies, however, is.</p>
<p>BillyMc what does poverty in the third world have to go with FA for people making 100-150k. By your own definition they are rich so why are they getting FA?</p>
Again, it was in response to an erroneous comment on the nature of wealth. It does not directly relate to financial aid, but neither did the comment in question.</p>
<p>there’s a difference between Federal income taxes and FICA/etc. FICA is for specific things…Social Security, Survivor Benefits if you were to die, Medicare, etc. Federal income taxes are for the general fund.</p>
<p>If a person pays gasoline taxes, that money is to support state and federal roads/highways, etc. If he pays property taxes, that money is typically for K-12 education. But if that person doesn’t pay any federal income taxes or state income taxes, then he is not supporting things like Pell Grants or state education grants, etc. </p>
<p>About 50% of Americans are not contributing to the federal general fund because they do not pay federal income taxes.</p>
<p>BillyMc, in the whole scheme of things, the disposable income that families who are deemed able to afford college is important because a lot of the cost/aid infrastructure is based on this. As more families that are suppose to be able to pay full cost choose not to do so and look at less expensive alternatives, colleges are going to have fewer families paying their sticker price. That is the direction we are heading right now. Many schools have to practice enrollment management and give out discounts in forms of merit awards to families that are able to pay in order to get the critical base needed for the school.</p>
<p>Looking at the schools that still have openings, I see a number of Catholics schools, fine ones, that still have space available. Some of them I recognize as schools that offered some nice “merit” money to kids from my son’s private school. They wanted, needed those kids with parents who did not ask for financial aid and were hoping the awards would get the $40K for them, instead of competing at the $55K+ level. And it worked a few times. Familes who could by all financial calculators pay that $55K+, did pick some school to save the $15K a year in costs. Heck, thats $60 K over 4 years, and for those families, though “wealthy” in definition are not so wealthy that $60K does not mean a difference in their budget. We are not talking about families who are truly so wealthy that full cost of college is not an issue. There are man families in the $200-300K income category who regard full price colleges as too expensive to pay and look for other alternatives. I don’t know where the breakpoint is where the majority of families at that income level do not consider the current top priced college as problematic. I would love to see a study that shows that. Harvard seems to draw the line at $200K, and that is for one of the absolutely most desired schools where some parents are ready to cut off an arm and sign away their entire savings to get a child. Yet, for whatever reason, H feels that at that break point, money is an issue in terms of getting the best students to their school. </p>
<p>In the last few years, a number of families who are very well to do by any definition, have included cost very heavily in their children’s college choices. My husband’s associate who lives in Manhattan, is one of the Obama’s upper income families, agonized over spending for Brandeis vs Binghamton, and finally came to the decision that the cost differential was not worth it. Yes,they could have done it, but not worth it. A big loss to Brandeis, here, as this was a well to do family that would support the school in many financial ways, and the kid was a good academic catch too. In fact, I know 2 kids who made this choice. I also know a family who is sending a child to Binghamton, after the D herself said the difference was not worth it personally to her to go to her dream school Holy Cross that accepted her. Family celebrated this acceptance, paid the deposit and upon mulling the ramifications of cost, did a back track and she will be going to Binghamtons, Honors College. HC has lost a full pay student. Several kids I know have turned down some ivy and other selective schools for state honors programs and schools where they get free tuition due to parents there. All full pay on paper. They are choosing not to pay. And that puts a pinch on schools losing a lot of these kids. Not the HPY circle, yet, but those schools can’t afford to be as generous. High priced schools that are not tops rep wise are going to be getting serious competiton from schools discounting and state school for the full pay student.</p>
<p>BillyMc “Family A: Family of four, one parent works non-labor-intensive job, high income, country-club mansion in a wealthy area, two fairly new expensive cars, lots of consumer debt, little disposable income left after these expenses.”</p>
<p>I assume you mean the high income is earned from a non-physical labor job? If by labor-intensive you just mean time/energy then that would not describe most high income earners in the US. Certain high income jobs demand a certain lifestyle or you won’t be able to maintain that high income. The country club membership may be required simply to maintain the contacts needed in your job. Driving a beater car is not acceptable in some jobs. I recall the partner at my first job pulling aside a new employee and telling them that they had to buy a new car. </p>
<p>While I certainly would agree with you that Family A is better off than family B (if for no other reason than they live in a safe neighborhood), Family A probably won’t be able to pay for the college any easier than Family B. </p>
<p>BTW - I look at wealth more along the lines of net worth. There are plenty of people that live large but own nothing.</p>