www.ditl.org

Deepcrush wrote:Doesn't matter, if you don't have money in the fund to start with then you can't spend it.

What I meant is, the politician who promise to increase Healthcare and Social Security AND lower taxes is saying that:

- You will pay less money that goes to the government
- You will pay more money going directly into the healthcare/social security

He doesn't plan to lower the money influx going to these social programs, but actually increasing them. Lowering tax is independant on that.

Except, off course, if these programs are actuarially deficitary. In that case, the plan sponsor (the Gov) have to make payments.

Arrrgg.. my Actuarial Math bachelor betrayed me!

Yeah, he meant that he's going to put less money in but give more money out. Hence the problem...

Deepcrush wrote:

Yeah, he meant that he's going to put less money in but give more money out. Hence the problem...

No, he's not.

He's saying he will diminish taxes

Taxes don't go into Healthcare. Nor into Social Security. Lowering taxes =/= diminishing the money that goes into healthcare and social security. It's an insurance/retirement scheme with cotisations/contributions (what is the right english term?).

Even if the Tax rate was at 0%, you would STILL pay for social security and healthcare.

Money for SS comes from taxing the people not using it. If you cut taxes and then increase spending you end up with a problem if you do nothing to balance the budget in the process.

If we run out of normal funds, the government often takes money from SS to pay things out. Thats a part of our system.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:He's saying he will diminish taxes

Taxes don't go into Healthcare. Nor into Social Security. Lowering taxes =/= diminishing the money that goes into healthcare and social security.

Yes it does. A tax is a deduction from an individual by the state. The state then (in theory) uses that money to improve the lot of it's citizens. This includes healthcare, state pensions, the dole, etc.

(what is the right english term?).

Tax.

Captain Seafort wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:He's saying he will diminish taxes

Taxes don't go into Healthcare. Nor into Social Security. Lowering taxes =/= diminishing the money that goes into healthcare and social security.

Yes it does. A tax is a deduction from an individual by the state. The state then (in theory) uses that money to improve the lot of it's citizens. This includes healthcare, state pensions, the dole, etc.

(what is the right english term?).

Tax.

I see. In that case, is there a difference on your paycheck between the money you pay for the S.I., and the rest of the taxation? Or it's all lumped together and the gov. then is supposed to send the appropriate amount of money to the fund?

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:He's saying he will diminish taxes

Taxes don't go into Healthcare. Nor into Social Security. Lowering taxes =/= diminishing the money that goes into healthcare and social security.

Yes it does. A tax is a deduction from an individual by the state. The state then (in theory) uses that money to improve the lot of it's citizens. This includes healthcare, state pensions, the dole, etc.

(what is the right english term?).

Tax.

I see. In that case, is there a difference on your paycheck between the money you pay for the S.I., and the rest of the taxation? Or it's all lumped together and the gov. then is supposed to send the appropriate amount of money to the fund?

Yes it is denoted differently but it is all just a tax. It is just that those lines are not impacted by changes to the marginal income tax rate and work by different rules. All of it is a tax though, in any language.

BigJKU316 wrote:Yes it is denoted differently but it is all just a tax. It is just that those lines are not impacted by changes to the marginal income tax rate and work by different rules. All of it is a tax though, in any language.

Not in french, hence the confusion.

We call them "cotisation", like for a Pension fund.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

BigJKU316 wrote:Yes it is denoted differently but it is all just a tax. It is just that those lines are not impacted by changes to the marginal income tax rate and work by different rules. All of it is a tax though, in any language.

Not in french, hence the confusion.

We call them "cotisation", like for a Pension fund.

I would say you can call it what you like but anytime the government takes money from you it is a tax in the most literal meaning of the word. If you are compelled to pay it and cannot option out of it then you are being taxed.

BigJKU316 wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

BigJKU316 wrote:Yes it is denoted differently but it is all just a tax. It is just that those lines are not impacted by changes to the marginal income tax rate and work by different rules. All of it is a tax though, in any language.

Not in french, hence the confusion.

We call them "cotisation", like for a Pension fund.

I would say you can call it what you like but anytime the government takes money from you it is a tax in the most literal meaning of the word. If you are compelled to pay it and cannot option out of it then you are being taxed.

I guess that's one way of putting it. We have multiple words for that in french.

Impot = Income tax
Taxe = Sales tax (also a catch-all term, like "Taxes d'Importation")
Cotisation = Taxes to pay for pension fund/social programs

So, when I went to vote the local news had a reporter out from taking a poll. He was asking everybody if the are a Republican or a Democrat. I told him I was an independant voter. Damn guy looked at me like I'm nuts.

Wonder what they'd do if I told them I'm a Libertarian Socialist?

Outside Context Problem

Mark wrote:So, when I went to vote the local news had a reporter out from taking a poll. He was asking everybody if the are a Republican or a Democrat. I told him I was an independant voter. Damn guy looked at me like I'm nuts.

Nice.

In PA, you have to be registered with a party otherwise you can't vote in the primary.