That’s not true of Social Security.   All taxed income is included in the calculation of benefits (PIA),  albeit at a lower percentage the higher the income.

Please let’s not mix all the issues  into one gigantic  bouillabaise. The Romney tax plan,  the TPC analysis and the subsequent ‘six studies’ were specifically about distribution of taxes under a ‘revenue neutral’ system. Since ALL estimates project large deficits,  ‘revenue neutrality’ implies the deficit will NOT be reduced by the set of proposals under discussion.  If we’re going to have a discussion about deficit reduction,  we need to look at proposals which address that issue,  and this one isn’t.  

As for paying income taxes,  a study by the Hamilton Project shows that between ages 35 and 55 70 — 80%  of people pay federal income taxes in a given year.  Here’s a link     http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/the_truth_about_taxes_just_about_everyone_pays_them/
Hamilton makes the further point that virtually everybody pays taxes if you include payroll taxes. 

I thought I said that the wealthy pay a much lower historical share of income taxes than their historical share of income,  meaning that the tax burden on them,  despite hysterical screaming,  is much lower than it was in say the socialist Eisenhower years,  or the equally socialist Reagen years, and that their after tax income as a share of total after tax income is quite a bit higher, and keep rising. . 

I’m not the one who insists that all additions to the deficit are created equal. You have made that pretense — up until now, when you claim that Romney’s additions are okay, even though he promises that he won’t add anything to the deficit. Clearly, your concern isn’t for the deficit. That’s okay — you should merely be honest about what your concerns actually are.

You compare insurance or Medicare to a lottery. That’s fine to do, if your only concern is for yourself, and you don’t give a damn about the nation you live in. The difference between a government program and a lottery is the difference between raising a child and masturbation. One is done for someone else; the other is for your own gratification. I don’t have anything against either one, but they’re done for different purposes.

I said these calculations don’t account
for any added economic growth and assume  spending is no lower than Obama’s. I certainly hope with Romney and a GOP Congress that won’t be
the case.

Are you aware that this is how insur­ance poli­cies are sup­posed to work — that healthy peo­ple pay more into the sys­tem than they get out?

Well lotteries work on the basis that many losers pay for the prizes of few winners. Course few people will play the lottery if they are certain they will be a loser.

A rich per­son will get the same Medicare as a poor per­son and pay far more in taxes (and for their monthly pre­mium).

Are you aware that this is how insurance policies are supposed to work — that healthy people pay more into the system than they get out? The point of any such program, whether run by a private company or a government, is that that most people who need it can’t afford it.

Are you aware that the whole point of having a nation is that there are things we need but that individuals can’t afford on their own?

Are you claiming that wealthy people do not benefit from there being a healthy populace in the country from which the wealthy people are getting wealthier?

So when you say Romney’s plan is “doable”, what you mean is that you’re okay with it adding to the deficit. You don’t mean “doable” in the sense of being “honest” or “achievable” — he claims it would not add to the deficit.

You’re okay with Romney’s plan adding to the deficit. So I don’t want to hear you complaining about the deficit again. Ever. That’s clearly not an honest concern of yours.

But you are correct about Medicare tax — the ceiling on income for that was lifted a while ago, so we move that 1.45 percent (as I recall) from regressive to straight percentage.  Still not progressive, of course.

Good point. Problem is SS and Medicare are capped benefit ie paying more in taxes gets you no more benefit. Welfare programs are difficult to justify progressivity on when benefits are capped.  Medicare taxes aren’t capped anyway though. A rich person will get the same Medicare as a poor person and pay far more in taxes (and for their monthly premium). So I guess you need to compare progressivity of benefits too.