Is there anything factually incorrect in the spending breakdown provided by the Cato Institute as they have stated it?

He is trying to say that Social Security is a separate tax. It is, however; if you ask most people they will just describe social security and medicare as a tax. That's what it is. I don't get a choice, and they take it. That's a tax. Give it a pretty name like safety net though. More politically correct. Don't get me wrong. I think social security could be a good institution if people would quit buying votes with the issue. Make it do what it was designed to do. You should get some interest on your money. But it was not designed to be anything close to a real world employment paycheck. The sick and the poor should recieve all the compassion we can give them but not the lazy and people with poor ways. The best help is a hand up not a hand out.

Social Security and Medicare are taken out of your paycheck separately from income taxes. That FICA thing (I'm sure you knew that). There's nothing incorrect about Cato's numbers but they're prefaced by the announcer saying "But do you know where all your federal income tax dollars are going?" That's a valid question but then they run down all tax money, not just income taxes. It's misleading.

Paul is very correct in saying that income tax is separate from FICA and other payroll taxes. Bush Inc. have used that fact time and again to avoid telling the truth about the taxes poor working folks in comparison to the very wealthy. CATO lied.

Gonzone, what specifically was Cato's lie?

Paul says that Cato's numbers are correct.

Margaret,

Paul has told you this at least three times but I will repeat it one more time. Listen carefully now and I promise to type slowly:

Social Security is NOT income tax.
Since Social Security is NOT income tax, you can't include it in calculations that involve only income tax.
CATO included Social security in calculations that they specified as income tax. Two different things, see?
If CATO had said PAYROLL tax instead of INCOME tax then they would have been accurate. They did not, therefore by misleading readers with an UNTRUTH, they LIED.

Got it?

If you are going to argue symantics over a title of a tax, well then hows this.

Does PAYROLL TAX come from your INCOME or is it magically produced from something else? Does it only go into the magical lock box that Al Gore was always ranting on about. Or does it get SPENT like Paul said. Yeah, there is an IOU there. So the question. Do you know how your INCOME (it came out of mine and yours) tax is being SPENT. Maybe it wasn't so misleading after all.

Gonzone,

Paul has acknowledged several times that, as stated, Cato's numbers are correct.

Cato's numbers breakdown how our tax money is spent. It does not qualify the tax as being either income or payroll but just generic tax spending.

The use of the phrase "income tax" is done by the writer, Karen Wynter, of the CNN/News 8 staff listed at the top of the article. She does not work for Cato. The Cato representative mentioned, Chris Edwards, never used the phrases "payroll tax" nor "income tax."

Ron,

If it is just semantics (you could learn to spell it correctly) then perhaps you should tell lthat to the Bush white House 'cuase thye've been wearing this little "semantics" ploy out ever since they took office when advocating tax cuts. If there were no difference then why the hell are the Repubs so fond of making the distinction? It ain't mine, it's theirs, I'm just attempting to explain the difference they make and use on a regular basis.

Margaret,

I'm certain what Jeff meant is that the numbers would be correct IF Cato had said combined payroll and income tax instead of saying only income tax. Again, this is not a distinction of my creation but one that has been used to death by the Bush White House when pushing tax cuts.

Gonzone,

First off, who is Jeff?

Please cut and past the section where you say "...Cato had said combined payroll and income tax instead of saying only income tax."

Cato absolutely did not say this in the article nor did they say it on the accompanying video available at the link.

Great. We have a spelling bee monitor. Seems like every blog has one of these. We're even because your grammar is horrible dude. It should have been "If there was not any difference" not "if there were no difference". Please don't do the spelling thing anymore. OK?

Sorry Margaret, I meant Paul.
My bad.
Here is the cut and paste where I say: "the numbers would be correct IF Cato had said combined payroll and income tax instead of saying only income tax. "
There are three separate threads on this subject and I recommend you look up the evidence you desire. And please quit it with the being willfully obtuse on this subject.

Sorry Ron about the pedantic correcting of the spelling of the word "semantics." I often make typos myself and have no right to correct a misspelled word by someone else.

Gonzone,

This quote is from the article that Paul supplied above.

"The Cato Institute brokedown how tax money will be spent in 2005:

22 percent for Social Security
19 percent for defense
19 percent for nondefense discretionary
13 percent for Medicare
12 percent for other
8 percent for Medicaid
7 percent for interest on the national debt"

The commentary from Cato specifically stated tax money, which would include both income and payroll taxes.

They did not lie as you say by directly stating that their numbers were for income taxes and not payroll taxes.

You made the statement that they lied, so why can't you point out the specific words which were lies?

I have looked up the evidence you says exists, and I can't find it because it doesn't exist, period.