Another poorly-thought out idea

[szh]

It's a graduated tax scale. The more you make, the more you pay, except for one very big IF. The more you make, the more write offs you have available, like retirement accounts, mortgage interest, etc. Those write offs are available to all income groups, but the lower groups don't have the means to participate.

I am perfectly happy with removing ALL those writeoffs, by the way!!! A flat-tax system (with just one accommodation for the absolutely poor and you can phase that out too - with increasing income - if you want) is the right way to go!

No need to feel sorry for the $250,000+ group. They were smart enough to get it, they'll be smart enough to keep it.

They are also smart enough to resent being told that they are not doing their "fair share". That definition of "fair" is total BS!

Z

[96Qowner]

And for pete's sake, let's by accurate and informative. Let's remember the difference between tax rates and tax revenues. We're talking about what income groups should pay what rates. Almost always, these discussion take place in the absence of that point.

When people talk about tax rates, they think they're talking about tax revenues, too. They're two different things that have a correlation, but not an exact correlation. It's an imperfect example, but when stores drop the price they don't intend to make less revenues. Revenues go up, because people spend money they otherwise would not have spent.

Where tax rates are beneficial, economic activity increases, and brings in higher revenue. Where tax rates are high, economic activity decreases and produces less revenue. That's why you don't increase rates when the country is in recession. That would only produce less revenue.

So, sure, the rich can afford to pay more than the average Joe. They already do, by a big margin. But the only guy I know of who has a job to offer anyone is the rich guy. Poor guys don't have a lot of jobs to offer.

So, since the talk really concerns revenues, it's also important to think in terms of whose rate should go up or down and how that will affect revenue.

[rn79870]

You are completely unreasonable. No wonder I can't stand you, did I ever say cut the taxes on the rich? NO! I said they are fine the way they are right now, with the rich paying more (percentage wise and total money wise), but do I feel they should pay even more than what they do right now? NO! I recommend you go back to grade school and learn to actually read what people have to say, from this post and many others you seem to have a problem.

PS: My father is a steel mill worker, I'll see if you can READ and THINK for yourself, and determine if I went to private school or not.

Here, I'd like you introduce you to Jack 5hit.Now, everybody will be wrong when they say you don't know him!

[rn79870]

Let's add to that a bit, shall we?:

Education + effort + dedication = success = unfair higher tax bracket (why?) = more unfair calls to "pay their fair share" (they already are!) = ... ... ...

Our tax system, and the mythical beliefs that somehow, the wealthy must be screwing the poor, is exactly the opposite incentive to make people work hard and succeed!

Z

Z, My income isn't limited by anything but how hard I want to work. I'm on 100% commission. The more I earn, the more I pay in taxes (welcome to quarterly returns) but, the funny thing, I still have more money. And the more I earn the more I want to earn. The government getting 15% (thereabouts) for the SET + my Income tax has never made me want to stop earning. The more I earn, the more I pay, but even paying more, I still have more expendable income...and cycle continues.

I'd love to to have a $250,000 tax obligation this year. Seriously, I'd love it.

[JerodKing]

Here, I'd like you introduce you to Jack 5hit.Now, everybody will be wrong when they say you don't know him!

You are, by FAR, the worst moderator I have ever "met". You may be "old" but you act like a damn child.

[Marenta]

You know, I love how we're not fighting about the candidates anymore. That's just such a turn on.. makes me so hot! (That was a sidebar.)

Anyway.. this can go both ways. If you're ingenious enough to make the 250K+ bracket, then you're ingenious enough to figure out ways to get writeoffs enough to make it so where you don't really have to pay in that much. Truthfully, if you own your own business, and you just so happen to buy a boat, and say you use your boat for "business meetings" well, then your boat is a "business expense" and thus it is a tax writeoff. That's just bull**** if you ask me, but, that's how the tax system works in this country, and we can't do anything about it.

I know I pay out the arse every month.. around 400 every month to taxes (because I'm a massochist) and when I do my taxes in Feb, I usually get a nice healthy paycheck back. I do realize that I am basically giving the government money for the year, but I don't mind that either. Because, when I make more money than I am now, I'm going to end up paying out more, and I'm okay with that. I'm okay with paying more. I'm okay with paying out more money the higher my income gets.

Why the hell should I be such a greedy satanical bastard with my money? The IRS is enough greedy satanical bastard for all of us combined, I don't think I need to add to it. Besides, I'm paying my own paycheck, it's kinda nice. Oh, and thanks for the paycheck from you all as well, I appreciate it!

[rn79870]

You are, by FAR, the worst moderator I have ever "met". You may be "old" but you act like a damn child.

You've got email.

[rn79870]

Says the little gal who's going out into the civilian world and into some nice 100k+ job in a nuke facility. Once you're there, you'll understand everything.

btw, best of luck, you've earned every bit of it...

[Marenta]

I am damned proud to pay taxes. It's like voting, it's one of those things that you can't take away from me. It makes me legit and more American than probably a fair majority of the scum that reside in this country. But, that's neither here nor there. I'm going to keep paying taxes at the same rate, and I'm going to enjoy every single bit of it.. hell, I might actually low ball myself one year just so I can pay in!

[JerodKing]

You've got email.

Well, unless you can convince the bishes in the apartment below me to reverse their decision yesterday to lock their router, or convince Comcast to come out before the 22nd, then I'm probably not gonna get to read it. If you can do either of those things, please call the gas company, we moved in the 31st, and they aren't coming until the 19th to turn it on, and 3 weeks of cold showers are killing me.

But I probably know what it says, and you're right, I should have kept on topic, and for that I'm sorry, but I think equal blame still lies on your shoulders, as a moderator, to keep subjects on topic, and not continue them off topic, as your little "jack" comment did.

[rn79870]

6 of your last 7 posts have been off topic rants about how much you don't like me or the way the politics forum is run. If you have a problem, or a complaint, use the computer your posting from to access your hotmail account and email me about it. DON'T post complaints or derogatory comments in the politics forum again, or your posts will start disappearing.

I don't enforce a strict "on topic" rule here as most people want some leeway in that regard. The topics eventually return to the topic one way or another.

[JerodKing]

This will be my last post in this topic, and I would email from my hotmail account, but I'm at work, and private email's are blocked (terribly slow day in R&D, waiting on everyone else to get their work done). I am sorry, my first message was out of line, as was my last argumentative one, but the rest were not at all attacks on you, but statements about the tax system. And I did have right to be upset, as you put words in my mouth by saying I wanted to lower taxes on the rich, and raise them on the poor, when I said the exact opposite, and that is when I blew up again, but I'm sorry, I should have argued my point, not made personal attacks.

[telcoman]

Sorry, I thought the article did mention the $102k but when I looked again I don't see it. My apologies!

Telcoman

[telcoman]

This will be my last post in this topic, and I would email from my hotmail account, but I'm at work, and private email's are blocked (terribly slow day in R&D, waiting on everyone else to get their work done). I am sorry, my first message was out of line, as was my last argumentative one, but the rest were not at all attacks on you, but statements about the tax system. And I did have right to be upset, as you put words in my mouth by saying I wanted to lower taxes on the rich, and raise them on the poor, when I said the exact opposite, and that is when I blew up again, but I'm sorry, I should have argued my point, not made personal attacks.

Jerodking

Well my access to NICO is now blocked at work so wow, look what I missed!Lets all calm down and post our thoughts and be prepared for the that will come from those that disagree. I am one of the oldest farhts here and some of the more conservative right wing members constantly bash and me but so what.I am an old NJ liberal that recognizes that our present government has been giving us plenty of these past eight years. The Bush tax cuts gave tax cuts to the wealthest Americans that neither needed them or asked for them.Fixing Social Security is important. The funding of SS on the wage base should not be capped at $102k dollars. That coupled with raising the retirement age as medicine advances and people live longer will go a long way to saving SS.A flat tax in unfair to lower wage earners because a greater percentage of their income goes for basic necessities, ie food, clothing, housing, gasoline etc than the wealthy. There is nothing left for investment, 401k, retirement etc.Social Security is only one small part of ones retirement assets.

Let us keep in mind that most or all of us here arrived because we are Nissan or Infiniti owners. We have a wide range of ages, political leanings, a few females, as well as a few curmudgeons.

I don't think my posts are going to change anyones mind and I've already made up my mind as to who I'm voting for.In grammer school, I liked Ike. In 64, I supported Barry Goldwater.After being drafted and spending two years in the army during Viet Nam, I began to realize how corrupt our government was with all the BS and false information they were giving the American people. Over 50k Americans dead for a useless war. Now Bush got us in another mess in Iraq as well as mismanaging the war in Afghanistan.This is the greatest country in the world and the liberals like myself are going to try to keep it that way.

Telcoman

[smockers83]

$50,000 a year is "comparatively well off." My belly hurts from that one.

From your perspective it may not be well off. Its well off compared to the $33,000-35,000 national average of those who are employed. Add to that that its probably around 70-80% of their best 3 years of employment.

Me from the economic impact thread of the two candidates: I'm sorry, but excluding seniors who make under $50,000 is ridiculous. Am I being harsh? You make think so, but what happens when baby boomers take this area of the population by storm? Not a good idea. Countries across Europe tax on taxes. They'll tax you on social transfers, which bids up the tax percentage. Someone could theoretically pay over 100% in taxes. What about teenagers who are working part time? What about families who can barely afford to live. Please, cutting seniors' taxes is dumb. Just a ploy to get the older people to vote for him since it seems much of his following are younger people.

SS is not meant as a retirement fund. Its a forced savings account, that's all, to help when retirement comes. If you want to retire, don't rely on SS. Also, if we're going to eliminate seniors from the tax roll, does that mean we can cut down on SS payments now? The problem with retirement and SS is that middle class America has no idea how to get out of debt, how to save, how to invest, how to retire. If they could just learn how to do that, SS wouldn't be an issue.

As for wealthy people paying into SS. The wealthy are never going to actually need SS, unless they are reckless with their money. Why force them to save money that will actually probably produce a negative RoR by the time they get to take it out? If you're wealthy enough, whether you make millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars, if you don't need SS, don't put the extra burden on everyone else. You were smart and did your own retirement savings, congratulations.

Oh and if you're planning for retirement, don't include expected SS payments, especially if you're younger.

[AZhitman]

No problem, Howie - I never knew you served, so you get a from me.

Don't exclude us right-leaning Independents from helping keep the US the greatest country in the world... Some of us have that same goal!

OK, back on topic... in a nutshell, BO spoke too soon, and got called out. When will he learn?

[szh]

Oh and if you're planning for retirement, don't include expected SS payments, especially if you're younger.

Which is another good reason for the "wealthy" to not find themselves being asked to pay more than is fair.

Z

[smockers83]

If you think he spoke too soon now, that's been his plan the whole time.

[skylndrftr]

Oh and if you're planning for retirement, don't include expected SS payments, especially if you're younger.

Not really..

If we ditched the 102k provision I am sure we could have a significantly raised income into the system, which would probably help keep it alive until it can be managed in a reasonable manner.

[stopcamping]

Jerodking

Well my access to NICO is now blocked at work so wow, look what I missed!Lets all calm down and post our thoughts and be prepared for the that will come from those that disagree. I am one of the oldest farhts here and some of the more conservative right wing members constantly bash and me but so what.I am an old NJ liberal that recognizes that our present government has been giving us plenty of these past eight years. The Bush tax cuts gave tax cuts to the wealthest Americans that neither needed them or asked for them.Fixing Social Security is important. The funding of SS on the wage base should not be capped at $102k dollars. That coupled with raising the retirement age as medicine advances and people live longer will go a long way to saving SS.A flat tax in unfair to lower wage earners because a greater percentage of their income goes for basic necessities, ie food, clothing, housing, gasoline etc than the wealthy. There is nothing left for investment, 401k, retirement etc.Social Security is only one small part of ones retirement assets.

Let us keep in mind that most or all of us here arrived because we are Nissan or Infiniti owners. We have a wide range of ages, political leanings, a few females, as well as a few curmudgeons.

I don't think my posts are going to change anyones mind and I've already made up my mind as to who I'm voting for.In grammer school, I liked Ike. In 64, I supported Barry Goldwater.After being drafted and spending two years in the army during Viet Nam, I began to realize how corrupt our government was with all the BS and false information they were giving the American people. Over 50k Americans dead for a useless war. Now Bush got us in another mess in Iraq as well as mismanaging the war in Afghanistan.This is the greatest country in the world and the liberals like myself are going to try to keep it that way.

Telcoman

[szh]

If we ditched the 102k provision I am sure we could have a significantly raised income into the system, which would probably help keep it alive until it can be managed in a reasonable manner.

I seriously doubt that. The problem with SS will not be solved by the influx of money ... remember that those people who paid more in would then be getting more out down the road too.

Plus, it would be prone to two other problems: first, it becomes a convenient large fund sitting there for use for other purposes ("This is temporary borrowing because we have a crisis in [you name it]"), and second, early easing up looking for good solutions ("oh, we got time now").

Z

[rn79870]

Unfortunitely, many people pay into it and get nothing more than the $255 death benefit. My uncle was one. Paid into it his entire life, retired, and before the 1st. check came he was dead.

Then there are a few who draw it into their 90s.

[szh]

I wish we could run the company I work for the same way Government likes to run itself!

- Revenue does not match expenses? No problem! Just reach into other pockets and take what we want - if they complain, pass laws and legally enforce them! All with a casual "You are not paying your fair share".

- Too many people on our payroll? We have deadwood staff? No problem! Just run at a deficit and keep motoring on - the money will show up eventually. No such thing as a negative bank account!

At my company, we would not have had to lay off people back in 2001 (went from 64 to 37 because we would have run out of money ... our startup company was growing but not making enough revenue). Good people had to go because we simply could not afford it.

Afterwards, we became profitable for a few years, but had to do a smaller lay off in 2007 (went from 55 down to 45 because we were changing our product and needed the funds to survive the transition). Again, good people had to go because we simply could not afford it.

The lack of true financial accountability in government, the attitude that "we can just increase taxes to account for shortfalls" rather than the far better "lets cut spending", etc., is simply unacceptable and irresponsible and a classic over-reach.

When the economy falters, companies and people tighten their belts and do what it takes to make it. The same needs to be true for government. When the economy is down, tax revenue is going to be down. The harsh reality is that this means government spending needs to be cut as well. Just like company expenses. And just like personal spending. You cannot spend what you don't have.

Trying to extract more tax revenue from company's and people who are also tightening their belts because of economic problems, is a positive feedback situation ... it contribute more to the hurt, does not solve it.

Z

[szh]

Unfortunitely, many people pay into it and get nothing more than the $255 death benefit. My uncle was one. Paid into it his entire life, retired, and before the 1st. check came he was dead.

Will probably happen to me too ... given my heart problems and genetics (parents died at ages 49 and 59).

Plus, I expect to be told "Oh, you were responsible enough to save money separately too? Good! You don't get back out of SS what you put into it - you don't deserve it! Remember the 'you-did-not-pay-your-fair-share' label we stuck you with? Well, now its our turn!"

If I continue to save like I am trying to do, with a good financial cushion when I retire, my payments into SS will prove to have been an added tax for decades, under a guise of "the government is saving it for you".

Z

[smockers83]

Not really..

If we ditched the 102k provision I am sure we could have a significantly raised income into the system, which would probably help keep it alive until it can be managed in a reasonable manner.

My point was don't plan for the payments as they will be a minimal amount of your retirement. If you're young you can invest, make a much larger return, and not even have to rely or even use SS. If you aren't young and have cash to invest, invest it, make your returns for retirement and minimize your SS dependence. I except SS to be around when I come of retirement age, but I am by no means figuring it into my retirement planning. If bad stuff happens to me for the rest of my life in that I can't make the money I want but I still have a retirement fund(s) going, without planning for SS, if I need to use it, I can use it as a bonus instead. So use it as a backup instead of depending on it. It wasn't mean to be depended on for retirement, just to help out.

[szh]

My point was don't plan for the payments as they will be a minimal amount of your retirement. If you're young you can invest, make a much larger return, and not even have to rely or even use SS. If you aren't young and have cash to invest, invest it, make your returns for retirement and minimize your SS dependence. I except SS to be around when I come of retirement age, but I am by no means figuring it into my retirement planning. If bad stuff happens to me for the rest of my life in that I can't make the money I want but I still have a retirement fund(s) going, without planning for SS, if I need to use it, I can use it as a bonus instead. So use it as a backup instead of depending on it. It wasn't mean to be depended on for retirement, just to help out.

You make good points!

However, most (not all) young people tend to have short-term thinking about finances. Yes, not all of them make enough money to save much, but there is also a "spend it now - the future can wait" attitude that is very disconcerting!

Z

[smockers83]

You make good points!

However, most (not all) young people tend to have short-term thinking about finances. Yes, not all of them make enough money to save much, but there is also a "spend it now - the future can wait" attitude that is very disconcerting!

Z

Yes, it is very sad. One of my best friends who just graduated college with me is getting married next May, they're looking for a house, and he wants to get a new car. Plus, he financed all four years of college at Michigan (every penny of it since he had to do it on his own), which isn't cheap by any means, and has revolving credit card debt with his credit limits stretched thin. So he's already in the hole and he wants to put himself further in the hole. This kid graduated with me in economics, you'd think he would have at least some sense. I've been trying to convince them of holding off on the house for at least a year so they can build some liquidity, get started on the current debt, and wait for the market to finally bottom out (my guess would be 1 to 2 years more before we start seeing the national housing market come out of its slump).

The biggest thing that scares me, and this isn't just with young people, it goes all the way up to people in their 40s, is the extensive use of credit lines. This is completely living out of their means and builds up the national debt (national debt consists of public and private debt) and keeps people from being able to retire. The thought process that goes through their mind is, "Oh, yeah I can definitely afford the monthly payments, so I can afford it," with no regards to interest expense, no plan on how to pay it off except for making minimum payments, nothing.

[skylndrftr]

Werd up Smockers!

Yeah just to give you an idea, I am 23 (almost 24) and am getting married in May. Between us we own 2 cars and are spendign a minimal (as minimal as possible) a ount on our weddign split three ways with our, and each of our parents. We both contribute to the matching limit on our 401k's and both our jobs have seperate pension plans. The only debt we have is around $20k in student loans after two BS and two MS degrees...however,

I don't think people like me are as rare as you think. Especially the younger generation is really starting to know better. This is because its harder for us to get thigns like house loans because of the living on credit crap. Don't get me wrong, having two engineering salaries (or heck one UAW ) makes it easier, but many families have two incomes and are in the same spot. I don't have a lot of sympathy for my parents gneration working till their dead, they put themselves in the mess they are in...however,

if w leave them to their own means, they ignore their healthcare they get foreclosed on they get tossed on the streets they go on public assistance etc. As with most things I believe a little help and a little direction from the government would be comparitively inexpensive and would save us money in the long run. I would gladly pay a few more tax dollars every year to put the economy in a state where interest on home loans is down a half point. Saves me THOlOUSANDS over years.

[Soravia]

Just like when U.S. got out of the great depression, government can stimulate the economy by CREATING JOBS & HIRNING PEOPLE.We can use people on building roads (not bridge to nowhere) with federal oversight teams to avoid pork.We can use people to contract farming for the government. Provide land, money and equipment. Let a private company manage it and reap the profits. Use the corn, switch grass etc for fuel.Do the same with oil fields and refineries. This is better than giving tax breaks to oil companies. Give them money and force them to do the job. Let them reap the profit and take back the investment later.

This will create jobs and not really spend the money at the same time while having guaranteed success of the projects.

Of course. Put up concrete walls and machine gun towers on the southern border. Illegal immigrants not only steal tax and jobs, they also bring criminals, drugs and guns into US. Mexican drug gangs are already operating in US. We can't afford to have them take over the country in 2045 when 30% of the population will be Mexicans since they breed pretty quick.

[smockers83]

Oh believe me, we're a rare breed for our generation--I'm only 22. Our generation will be inheriting the spending habits of the previous generation, only now is it that help is just starting to come in forms of debt consolidation programs and education (not formal education mind you).