Another poorly-thought out idea

[AZhitman]

...from a guy who needs to shut up and think.

WASHINGTON (AP) — If you're a senior citizen and make less than $50,000 a year, Barack Obama has a deal for you: the rest of your life free of federal income tax.

Sounds appealing, right? Maybe to many seniors. But tax policy experts in Washington are giving it bad reviews. They see it as another subsidy for senior citizens, who already get federal help through Social Security and Medicare and often have economic advantages over other demographic groups.

Some of Obama's allies in Washington think he's onto a bad idea.

"Most low- and moderate-income seniors already owe no income tax. Among seniors with incomes below $50,000 who do owe income tax, a significant number have modest incomes because they are retired but possess substantial assets," said Robert Greenstein, who heads the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. "Given all the problems and needs the nation faces, targeting relief to this group isn't a priority."

The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, gave the idea bad grades in a recent study of the two presidential candidates' tax plans.

Seniors already get preferential treatment in the tax code. They get to claim an additional standard deduction and only a portion of their Social Security benefits are taxed. Many don't pay payroll taxes because their income is from investments rather than wages.

"The proposal would exempt comparatively well off, though not affluent, senior citizens from tax and give them a benefit not generally available to working Americans," said the Tax Policy Center paper. It "helps only those low-income seniors who currently pay income taxes. Those too poor to owe any tax — arguably those most in need — would get no benefit."

Even the powerful seniors' lobby AARP doesn't seem excited about Obama's idea.

Tax experts across the political spectrum also fault the Obama plan's abrupt $50,000-a-year threshold. As described by the campaign, seniors making, say, $48,000 would pay no income tax, while someone with income slightly more than $50,000 could pay several thousand dollars in income taxes. Seniors nearing the $50,000 threshold would have incentive to quit working.

So, when BO supposedly consults with his "experts", who are they? And why does their advice not mirror that of the TRUE experts?

[rn79870]

Wow, I don't have time to take that apart right now, but it's about as inaccurate as it comes.

"Most low- and moderate-income seniors already owe no income tax. Among seniors with incomes below $50,000 who do owe income tax, a significant number have modest incomes because they are retired but possess substantial assets,"

So there's no reason to complain about Obama's plan as it apparently has little affect.

Seniors already get preferential treatment in the tax code. They get to claim an additional standard deduction and only a portion of their Social Security benefits are taxed. Many don't pay payroll taxes because their income is from investments rather than wages.

Remember, many are on fixed incomes and don't enjoy any more than a 2 to 3% raise each year.

"The proposal would exempt comparatively well off, though not affluent, senior citizens from tax and give them a benefit not generally available to working Americans," said the Tax Policy Center paper. It "helps only those low-income seniors who currently pay income taxes. Those too poor to owe any tax — arguably those most in need — would get no benefit."

$50,000 a year is "comparatively well off." My belly hurts from that one. I like the "well off but not affluent" comment, it shows how confused the author is.

It "helps only those low-income seniors who currently pay income taxes. Those too poor to owe any tax — arguably those most in need — would get no benefit."

Parse that sentence and you'll see how ridiculous the author is.

As described by the campaign, seniors making, say, $48,000 would pay no income tax, while someone with income slightly more than $50,000 could pay several thousand dollars in income taxes.

People who make less than I do pay less taxes too. Some make so little and have a few kids and actually get back more than they paid in.

Remember one thing. Even though a senior pays on taxes on earned income, that person still pays Soc Sec and Medicare taxes.

I think the anti-Obama people ought to start looking for legitimate issues to complain about.

[JerodKing]

RN

Wow, I don't have time to take that apart right now, but it's about as inaccurate as it comes.

"Most low- and moderate-income seniors already owe no income tax. Among seniors with incomes below $50,000 who do owe income tax, a significant number have modest incomes because they are retired but possess substantial assets,"

So there's no reason to complain about Obama's plan as it apparently has little affect.

Seniors already get preferential treatment in the tax code. They get to claim an additional standard deduction and only a portion of their Social Security benefits are taxed. Many don't pay payroll taxes because their income is from investments rather than wages.

Remember, many are on fixed incomes and don't enjoy any more than a 2 to 3% raise each year.

"The proposal would exempt comparatively well off, though not affluent, senior citizens from tax and give them a benefit not generally available to working Americans," said the Tax Policy Center paper. It "helps only those low-income seniors who currently pay income taxes. Those too poor to owe any tax — arguably those most in need — would get no benefit."

$50,000 a year is "comparatively well off." My belly hurts from that one. I like the "well off but not affluent" comment, it shows how confused the author is.

It "helps only those low-income seniors who currently pay income taxes. Those too poor to owe any tax — arguably those most in need — would get no benefit."

Parse that sentence and you'll see how ridiculous the author is.

As described by the campaign, seniors making, say, $48,000 would pay no income tax, while someone with income slightly more than $50,000 could pay several thousand dollars in income taxes.

People who make less than I do pay less taxes too. Some make so little and have a few kids and actually get back more than they paid in.

Remember one thing. Even though a senior pays on taxes on earned income, that person still pays Soc Sec and Medicare taxes.

I think the anti-Obama people ought to start looking for legitimate issues to complain about.

RN, I can't stand you anymore. As a democrat, you offend me more than George Bush. Democrats are supposed to be open to new ideas, but not blind to terrible ones. Your blind faith in Obama, and your willingness to agree in everything he does, shows a very scary lack of free thinking on your part. I mean for example you switched your view on off shore drilling because Obama did, and that's just one small example. Do yourself a favor and learn to like a candidate, but be willing to criticize him as well.

[skylndrftr]

So, when BO supposedly consults with his "experts", who are they? And why does their advice not mirror that of the TRUE experts?

Ok...and who are the "Tax experts across the political spectrum" that this article refers to?

And if you want to play that game, I would love to! As an opener, the head of McCain's foreign policy team is also a paid lobbyist for the nation of Georgia. And yet a good portion of his Georgia speech was pulled from Wikipedia.

[rn79870]

RN

RN, I can't stand you anymore. As a democrat, you offend me more than George Bush. Democrats are supposed to be open to new ideas, but not blind to terrible ones. Your blind faith in Obama, and your willingness to agree in everything he does, shows a very scary lack of free thinking on your part. I mean for example you switched your view on off shore drilling because Obama did, and that's just one small example. Do yourself a favor and learn to like a candidate, but be willing to criticize him as well.

Psssstttt....those whooshing noises you keep hearing, those are my points and thoughts zipping right over your head.

you switched your view on off shore drilling because Obama did...

If you'de been paying attention, you would have seen that I'd supported off shore drilling and drilling in Alaska long before Obama did.

That's two swings and two big misses, but thanks for posting anyway.

[Soravia]

Seniors already have low insurance on cars. (I pay $110 to $300 a month depending on the sub $40K car.) Seniors get Senior Discount at many restaruants, etc. The only places they pay more than a young one like me is health and life insurance.

A lot of young people are living with $25K income and still pay a couple of thousands on income tax. How can you NOT say that $50K is well off for a senior, considering that they still get their social security and every other benefits that young people don't.

This is just typical of Obama's election GIMMICKS, just like his 'limited off-shore drilling' that will still won't reduce FOREIGN oil dependency.

Obama has a good hold on his 'mindless fans' who are young age by using word change, so now he wants seniors by saying 'Senior Tax Break'.I don't know about Anti-Christ, This man IS Anti-America. Between Arabs, Russians, Islam extremist, Illegal Immigrants, Budget Deficit and China, Obama will drive the nation under.
Modified by Soravia at 4:23 PM 8/12/2008

[telcoman]

...from a guy who needs to shut up and think.

WASHINGTON (AP) — If you're a senior citizen and make less than $50,000 a year, Barack Obama has a deal for you: the rest of your life free of federal income tax.

Sounds appealing, right? Maybe to many seniors. But tax policy experts in Washington are giving it bad reviews. They see it as another subsidy for senior citizens, who already get federal help through Social Security and Medicare and often have economic advantages over other demographic groups.

Some of Obama's allies in Washington think he's onto a bad idea.

"Most low- and moderate-income seniors already owe no income tax. Among seniors with incomes below $50,000 who do owe income tax, a significant number have modest incomes because they are retired but possess substantial assets," said Robert Greenstein, who heads the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. "Given all the problems and needs the nation faces, targeting relief to this group isn't a priority."

The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, gave the idea bad grades in a recent study of the two presidential candidates' tax plans.

Seniors already get preferential treatment in the tax code. They get to claim an additional standard deduction and only a portion of their Social Security benefits are taxed. Many don't pay payroll taxes because their income is from investments rather than wages.

"The proposal would exempt comparatively well off, though not affluent, senior citizens from tax and give them a benefit not generally available to working Americans," said the Tax Policy Center paper. It "helps only those low-income seniors who currently pay income taxes. Those too poor to owe any tax — arguably those most in need — would get no benefit."

Even the powerful seniors' lobby AARP doesn't seem excited about Obama's idea.

Tax experts across the political spectrum also fault the Obama plan's abrupt $50,000-a-year threshold. As described by the campaign, seniors making, say, $48,000 would pay no income tax, while someone with income slightly more than $50,000 could pay several thousand dollars in income taxes. Seniors nearing the $50,000 threshold would have incentive to quit working.

So, when BO supposedly consults with his "experts", who are they? And why does their advice not mirror that of the TRUE experts?

Gregg

You must be getting all of your incorrect information from Fox news?

If you would listen to Obama's speeches, he want to raise taxes for anyone earning over $250k per year. His tax policy would not change for anyone earning less. Why should our corporate executives earning tens and hundreds of millions of dollars not pay social security and income tax on those earnings?

Since when is $50k in earnings rich? That is not even a decent down payment on a house and many vehicles already exceed that amount today.

Telcoman

[Soravia]

Do you know that $250K is how much someone owning a small business would make?So $250K HEAVY tax is tax for small business owners.

If he wants to make tax for corporate CEOs, MAKE tax for Corporate CEOs making $1M+ a year.

[AZhitman]

Gregg

You must be getting all of your incorrect information from Fox news?

Your posts are irrelevant to me until you start responding when I clobber you with facts. I understand it might take a while, but just hit the "search" button and find all the times I've quoted and (pummelled) you. I'll be waiting.

If you have a problem with the article, maybe you should blame the DEMOCRATS they quoted. or the DEMOCCRATS who think his concept is out-of-whack.

Don't go screaming "media bias" when the media is just reporting what the DEMOCRATS said.

Besides, if the media is biased, it's in your favor, not mine.

BTW, not Fox News.

Here's the article, should you care to call it "biased":

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...N.htm

Now, don't post again until you read and comprehend why what you posted was incorrect.

Why should our corporate executives earning tens and hundreds of millions of dollars not pay social security and income tax on those earnings?

Are you high?

Do you have ANY IDEA how much tax revenue that demographic is liable for?

Contrary to what your Messiah spews, SS and income taxes apply to everyone. How can you put your fingers on a keyboard and say:

Why should our corporate executives earning tens and hundreds of millions of dollars not pay social security and income tax on those earnings?

[telcoman]

Your posts are irrelevant to me until you start responding when I clobber you with facts. I understand it might take a while, but just hit the "search" button and find all the times I've quoted and (pummelled) you. I'll be waiting.

If you have a problem with the article, maybe you should blame the DEMOCRATS they quoted. or the DEMOCCRATS who think his concept is out-of-whack.

Don't go screaming "media bias" when the media is just reporting what the DEMOCRATS said.

Besides, if the media is biased, it's in your favor, not mine.

BTW, not Fox News.

Here's the article, should you care to call it "biased":

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...N.htm

Now, don't post again until you read and comprehend why what you posted was incorrect.

Are you high?

Do you have ANY IDEA how much tax revenue that demographic is liable for?

Contrary to what your Messiah spews, SS and income taxes apply to everyone. How can you put your fingers on a keyboard and say:

From the SS website

"Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program limits the amount of earnings subject to taxation for a given year. The same annual limit also applies when those earnings are used in a benefit computation. This limit increases each year with increases in the national average wage index. We call this annual limit the contribution and benefit base. For earnings in 2008, this base is $102,000. The OASDI tax rate for wages paid in 2008 is set by statute at 6.2 percent for employees and employers, each. Thus, an individual with wages equal to or larger than $102,000 would contribute $6,324.00 to the OASDI program in 2008, and his or her employer would contribute the same amount. The OASDI tax rate for self-employment income in 2008 is 12.4 percent. (Tax rates of 1.45 percent for employees and employers, each, and 2.90 percent for self-employed persons, are applied to all earnings—without a taxable maximum—under Medicare's Hospital Insurance program.)"

So please explain why those earning over $102k should not pay on their millions of income?

The USA Today article sounds like it was written by a tool of the Bush administration.

Please find a more reliable source when discussing taxes.

[ishkabibble]

Do you know that $250K is how much someone owning a small business would make?So $250K HEAVY tax is tax for small business owners.

If he wants to make tax for corporate CEOs, MAKE tax for Corporate CEOs making $1M+ a year.

Where are you getting these figures from?

[AZhitman]

From the SS website

"Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program limits the amount of earnings subject to taxation for a given year. The same annual limit also applies when those earnings are used in a benefit computation. This limit increases each year with increases in the national average wage index. We call this annual limit the contribution and benefit base. For earnings in 2008, this base is $102,000. The OASDI tax rate for wages paid in 2008 is set by statute at 6.2 percent for employees and employers, each. Thus, an individual with wages equal to or larger than $102,000 would contribute $6,324.00 to the OASDI program in 2008, and his or her employer would contribute the same amount. The OASDI tax rate for self-employment income in 2008 is 12.4 percent. (Tax rates of 1.45 percent for employees and employers, each, and 2.90 percent for self-employed persons, are applied to all earnings—without a taxable maximum—under Medicare's Hospital Insurance program.)"

So please explain why those earning over $102k should not pay on their millions of income?

The USA Today article sounds like it was written by a tool of the Bush administration.

Please find a more reliable source when discussing taxes.

Maybe someone who speaks Libby can decipher the point you're trying to make.

You're referencing OASDI which ontains an annual income taxation base limitation. Then you go on to claim that people earning $102K per annum are making "millions" (i suppose if you extrapolate $102K over 10 years, then yes, that person has earned a million dollars...) and that they must pay taxes... Nowhere did I say they DON'T.

So where is the part of your post that counters anything that was referenced in the article?

Apparently the Democrats cited in the article must be "tools of the Bush administration"? Is that what you're saying?

Have you ever even READ the tax code? Do you do your own taxes, or are you one of the mindless grunts that drops off a box of papers at H&R Crock?

Put the tin foil hat back on.

And this is the "intellectual superiority" the Left boasts about?

I'm not so sure the Left needs your help, T.

[rn79870]

The OASDI tax rate for self-employment income in 2008 is 12.4 percent. (Tax rates of 1.45 percent for employees and employers, each, and 2.90 percent for self-employed persons, are applied to all earnings—without a taxable maximum—under Medicare's Hospital Insurance program.

I'm one of those fortunate individuals that get to pay the "self employment tax." (which I believe you're hitting at here) It's closer to 15% than 12.4% but I think you're stating the two individually. And, the great thing is that it is paid on NET not GROSS income. Sucks big time. I get to write off business expenses but nothing else from it.

Next guy who says Social Security is a "gift" from the government gets called a few bad names. I've paid plenty for my SS.

[AZhitman]

I'm one of those fortunate individuals that get to pay the "self employment tax." Sucks big time. I get to write off business expenses but nothing else from it.

Next guy who says Social Security is a "gift" from the government gets called a few bad names. I've paid plenty for my SS.

As do I, and it DOES suck.

Well-said, B.

Now, get Howie a cool drink. He's probably hyperventilating right about now.

[telcoman]

Maybe someone who speaks Libby can decipher the point you're trying to make.

You're referencing OASDI which ontains an annual income taxation base limitation. Then you go on to claim that people earning $102K per annum are making "millions" (i suppose if you extrapolate $102K over 10 years, then yes, that person has earned a million dollars...) and that they must pay taxes... Nowhere did I say they DON'T.

So where is the part of your post that counters anything that was referenced in the article?

Apparently the Democrats cited in the article must be "tools of the Bush administration"? Is that what you're saying?

Have you ever even READ the tax code? Do you do your own taxes, or are you one of the mindless grunts that drops off a box of papers at H&R Crock?

Put the tin foil hat back on.

And this is the "intellectual superiority" the Left boasts about?

I'm not so sure the Left needs your help, T.

My point is those earning over $102k should be paying social security taxes on their entire income and not just on the first $102,000.

And no, I do not do my own taxes. I have a professional accountant do them and explains all the complex tax codes to me.

You left out the paragraph pertaining to SS only applying to the first $102k of income in the USA article. I Wonder why?Shouldn't the wealthy in this country be paying their fair share?

Telcoman

[telcoman]

I've paid plenty for my SS.

So have I but those fortunate enough to earn over $102k should be taxed at the same rate as those earning under $102k with respect to social security and medicare taxes.

[rn79870]

So have I but those fortunate enough to earn over $102k should be taxed at the same rate as those earning under $102k with respect to social security and medicare taxes.

Absolutely agree.

[AZhitman]

My point is those earning over $102k should be paying social security taxes on their entire income and not just on the first $102,000.

And no, I do not do my own taxes. I have a professional accountant do them and explains all the complex tax codes to me.

You left out the paragraph pertaining to SS only applying to the first $102k of income in the USA article. I Wonder why?Shouldn't the wealthy in this country be paying their fair share?

H - I comprehend your point. And we'll get to that.

My point (and as the OP, mine takes precendence ) was that even BO's own supporters and non-partisan experts have serious reservations about his proposed "plan".

I see NOTHING in the USA Today article about $102K of income. Maybe you can highlight it for me? If it wasn't there, how could I have "left it out"? Please don't make me out to be deceptive, I don't roll that way.

By the way, Senator Obama does NOT share your view on SS taxes:

Obama states, "the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system." Actually, that's seems to be the only place he's looking. He would impose a tax of 2 to 4 percent on income over $250,000, creating a no-tax or gap between the present $102,000 cap and $250,000. Critics say this solution alone wouldn't plug the entire Social Security shortfall.

In this instance, there's an incentive for the misinformed and short-sighted to fit within that "gap". But it would be VERY short-sighted, since SS is the ONLY government program that pays higher incomes to people who contribute more into the system.

Stop and let that sink in...

My point in inquiring about your taxes (although it's certainly none of my business) is that it's very educational to do your own.

I've NEVER had a so-called "professional" do a better job (I have 2 relatives who are successful tax accountants, they check my returns annually and I always get a ).

[szh]

My point is those earning over $102k should be paying social security taxes on their entire income and not just on the first $102,000.

And no, I do not do my own taxes. I have a professional accountant do them and explains all the complex tax codes to me.

You left out the paragraph pertaining to SS only applying to the first $102k of income in the USA article. I Wonder why?Shouldn't the wealthy in this country be paying their fair share?

Absolutely classic!! Simplistic thinking ... that people in the Liberal, 'nee Socialist, camp like to believe in.

The "wealthy" in this country are paying much more, in absolute dollars, than those who don't! Period. We like to express it in terms of percentages (to make it palatable and fuzzy the issue a bit, so that it does not look like we are actually screwing those "wealthy" folks) and forget that the absolute actual amounts are important too.

What is actually unfair is that the "wealthy" do not get the same "return" on the value of the payments! Lousy ROI frankly.

Let me prove this to you with a simple "flat-tax" based example (even though with the current tax system, the situation is much worse).

Let's take two scenarios: One person making $50,000 (your average guy) and one making $250,000 (you supposedly "wealthy" guy - although this is not really true either), along with a flat tax rate of 20% and, for simplicity, a single "poverty" deduction of $10,000.

The first person pays: 0.2 * (50,000-10,000) = $8,000 in taxes.

The second person pays: 0.2 * (250,000-10,000)=$48,000 in taxes ... almost as much as the first person earns in total and a factor of six times as much actual money!

Does that second person get six times better roads near his house? Or six times quicker response from police and fire? Or six times better education for his kids at the local public school? Or six times better park service where he/she takes their kids to play? Or six times better service from a public official in the local town? Or six times as many books to take out from the library? I could go on and on ...

And, given actual tax rates (lower for the $50k earner and higher for the $250k earner), the factor is closer to 10 to 20 times higher absolute payments - not 6 times.

That is the real unfairness!

So, I will please ask you not to ask questions like: "Shouldn't the wealthy in this country be paying their fair share?"

Indeed, a way better question is: "Why do we ask the wealthy in this country to pay far more than their fair share?"

(By the way, the reason SS is capped at a percentage of $102k, is because the SS Admin worked out the max benefit that could be paid out to those same individuals at retirement and made an effort to make sure that they indeed paid a fairer share of the intake.

Basically, for a given individual, the SS payments on retirement are capped, so the SS collections are rightfully capped too.

Z

P.S. Please don't believe that claptrap about the wealthy not paying any taxes, that I see on some web sites with a socialist axe to grind. That is simply not the case.

[AZhitman]

Game.

Set.

Match.

Good night!

[rn79870]

Indeed, a way better question is: "Why do we ask the wealthy in this country to pay far more than their fair share?"

But that's not really the case at all. We give the less fortunate more of a break because they have to pay for things like, food, electricity, rent, clothes, milk for the kids, etc. And those expenses take a far greater percentage from their pay check than it does from those making over 250k.

A family making 50k has little or nothing left over each year. A family making 250k has enough left over to buy the vette and the benz and still go on vacation. So who should fairly bear the greater burden of paying for the country that made it all possible? A no brainer, the 250k crowd.

[JerodKing]

Indeed, a way better question is: "Why do we ask the wealthy in this country to pay far more than their fair share?"

But that's not really the case at all. We give the less fortunate more of a break because they have to pay for things like, food, electricity, rent, clothes, milk for the kids, etc. And those expenses take a far greater percentage from their pay check than it does from those making over 250k.

A family making 50k has little or nothing left over each year. A family making 250k has enough left over to buy the vette and the benz and still go on vacation. So who should fairly bear the greater burden of paying for the country that made it all possible? A no brainer, the 250k crowd.

Then give me your G, since I make less than you, and you will probably be able to afford a new one soon, and I don't have enough money to replace my 95 Sentra. Help me with some of my burden. Besides, you should be driving a Versa or something that gets better gas mileage, you know, for the environment .

[rn79870]

I'll give you my secret formula for success...so you can earn anything you choose to have.

Education + effort + dedication = success.

Whereeducation = knowledge in your field.effort = doing your best - every time.dedication = never quitting, never retreating, never losing sight.

Follow that philosophy and you'll be driving any car you choose.

And the G isn't any harder on the environment than any other Nissan, in fact mine is 100% legal so it might even be better than most.

[JerodKing]

I'll give you my secret formula for success...so you can earn anything you choose to have.

Education + effort + dedication = success.

Whereeducation = knowledge in your field.effort = doing your best - every time.dedication = never quitting, never retreating, never losing sight.

Follow that philosophy and you'll be driving any car you choose.

And the G isn't any harder on the environment than any other Nissan, in fact mine is 100% legal so it might even be better than most.

While I agree with your plan, why should people that follow it be MORE punished for it. This being said I am perfectly happy with the tax breakdown now, and even before the initial Bush tax cuts, but raising taxes even more on the rich to me just seems unfair to those that worked so hard, as I work so hard. As for the G comment, I disagree, and 6cyl idling at 600RPM's is going to use more gas than a 4 cyl idling at RPM's. My car is 100% stock and legal, and gets 34MPG 50%city/50% highway.

[rn79870]

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.

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.

[JerodKing]

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.

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.

You don't need to dumb down the tax system we have, I passed the 7th grade about 10 years ago and it taught me all about it. My point is the wealthy ALREADY pay a higher percentage, and a significantly higher one than I pay. I am all for them paying "their fair share" but there comes a point when their "fair" share becomes their "outrageous" share.

[rn79870]

You don't need to dumb down the tax system we have, I passed the 7th grade about 10 years ago and it taught me all about it...

Wow, you must have gone to private schools.

So let's do it your way, we'll cut the taxes on the wealthy and let the poor folk pay more. The money has to come from somewhere, they don't just print more.

[JerodKing]

Wow, you must have gone to private schools.

So let's do it your way, we'll cut the taxes on the wealthy and let the poor folk pay more. The money has to come from somewhere, they don't just print more.

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.

[szh]

So let's do it your way, we'll cut the taxes on the wealthy and let the poor folk pay more. The money has to come from somewhere, they don't just print more.

Hmmm? In my example, I am not saying that the taxes on the wealthy should be cut, or that the taxes on the poor folk should be increased. The system is what it is today - escalating tax percentages and all (without the flat tax approach that I happen to favor, BTW).

What I am saying is that we must properly acknowledge that higher income people are actually paying more - in absolute amounts. And, instead of hiding behind percentages, we must acknowledge that they are already paying their fair share (and then some!). And, while we are at it, let's abandon this sham and pretence that we are a democratic country (some of our practices are downright socialist).

BTW, penalizing people for their success in life (earning more over time and having to pay a higher percentage of that in taxes - the current tax system) is a bizarre disincentive. All in the name "they can afford to pay more". Utterly unfair BS.

Nor is it true that all the wealthy get away with not paying taxes because of tax shelters and the like - that is a classic myth! With AMT and other "tax equalizing" approaches, that simply does not happen. People who are in the upper-middle income level (that is the real description of the 200k range - they are not "wealthy") do not have these extensive tax shelters and crap that people seem to want to believe in - that myth just amazes me!

Finally, IMHO, if we do a flat-tax system, with an appropriate provision for the absolutely destitute - NO OTHER DEDUCTION ALLOWED - then taxes (in terms of absolute amounts) for most people will stay about the same, particularly if we pick the percentage carefully. And, it might help remove this farcical myth that the "wealthy do not pay their fair share".

Z

[szh]

I'll give you my secret formula for success...so you can earn anything you choose to have.

Education + effort + dedication = success.

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