I just know that I am making the right decision in voting against Obama!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25143640/

Z

Why does the income amount of $250K remind me of the Clintons and the claim that people who make $250K or more are millionaires because in 4 years they will have a million bucks?

Sorry, back on topic.

Isn't it a concept of economics that you tax activities that you DO NOT want to encourage? So if you tax people making money, you will discourage people from making too much money? This destroying your tax base?

Actually, I don't have a problem with the richest 3% paying SS on the money they earn above $102,000.

I found your comment re: voting against Obama. Isn't it too bad that we don't have an election where we could vote or someone instead of voting against someone. I hate these lesser of two evils elections.

Cold_Zero wrote:Isn't it a concept of economics that you tax activities that you DO NOT want to encourage? So if you tax people making money, you will discourage people from making too much money? This destroying your tax base?

If that's true, then the IRS surely doesn't want me making any money, or anyone else for that matter, hence the income tax? Wait, after I pay taxes and buy gas, I have a little left for food. Maybe you are right Coldy.

Well the IRS doesnt set tax policy the Congress does. IRS just enforces tax the tax law and collects taxes. I am no economist.... and just threw that out there because my brother in law always fond of stating this. If its true, then we need to tax poor people and we can get ride of poverty.

rn79870 wrote:Actually, I don't have a problem with the richest 3% paying SS on the money they earn above $102,000.

I guess my issue is that I do have a problem with that. Particularly since the SS system is a train wreck and I doubt that I or my family will get back what I put into it - over the past 34 years that I have been working and putting in the maximum contribution for the past 26 years or so.

We can talk all we want about progressive and regressive tax systems and all that, but the fact is we put an unfair burden on the rich ... just because "they can afford it".

Let's debate that premise a bit. Why is the above a foregone conclusion? Why should the rich shoulder the burden for everybody else? In absolute terms, since the base is higher, the actual absolute value of the tax payments from the "rich" is usually higher than from the "poor". Isn't that good enough?

As you can probably tell, I am an advocate of a flat-tax system, with no breaks for mortgage, interest, etc. Yes, I own a house, and a darn expensive one (being in S.F. Bay Area), but this is my choice and the deduction for the mortgage interest payment should not be a "right" that I expect.

So ... let's go for a simplified tax system - "just send in 20% of everything you netted last year to the Feds, and 5% of everything you made last year to the State you live in. No mortgage deductions, no capital gains exclusions, no exemptions for extra kids, no marriage penalties, no losses, etc." The only exception is a bottom limit for the truly poor: "if you did not make at least $10k, then you don't get to pay anything".

This would make life a lot easier, and make decisions about marriage, house purchase, etc., an individual choice issue!

rn79870 wrote:I found your comment re: voting against Obama. Isn't it too bad that we don't have an election where we could vote or someone instead of voting against someone. I hate these lesser of two evils elections.

Point.

Z

The way to fix SS is to control how the money is going out and maybe change how it comes in. Taxing the rich who don't need SS just because they can afford it isn't right. SS was never intended to fund a retirement and it shouldn't be used as so. People should be investing their own money for retirement. Obama may point to the current situation, but a disciplined approach with long term goals is one of the best ways to invest. I had something else in mind that I really wanted to say, but its gone. When I think of it, I'll add it.

However, the systems that really need overhaul are Medicare/Medicade.

i a

smockers83 wrote:The way to fix SS is to control how the money is going out and maybe change how it comes in. Taxing the rich who don't need SS just because they can afford it isn't right. SS was never intended to fund a retirement and it shouldn't be used as so. People should be investing their own money for retirement. Obama may point to the current situation, but a disciplined approach with long term goals is one of the best ways to invest. I had something else in mind that I really wanted to say, but its gone. When I think of it, I'll add it.

However, the systems that really need overhaul are Medicare/Medicade.

i agree. SS is small peanuts in comparison to the debocle that is Medicare/Medicaid. My father is a physician and he tells me stories of doctors who cant afford to practice anymore. The medicaid/medicare payment structure is so unrealisitc that its costing physicians money out of their pocket to take in these patients. For example, say you do a colonoscopy. You charge HMOs 500 dollars. It costs you, due to replacement of scope, staff, etc around 300. You profit 200. You bill medicaid/medicare 500, they pay 250 and you eat the 50 dollars. You can't turn away these patients, but at the same time, you cant afford to treat them. Its a messed up system that has been ignored for far too long. SS should not be a retirement. It should be supplemental income, so your retirement lasts longer. Im sorry, but I was expecting more fiscal responsibilites from the republicans, and i dont see how voting for another one will solve the problem.

I'm all for abolishment of SS and Medicare / Medicaid.

Privatize the whole thing, make it just like current HMOs, and let people apply what they've already paid in towards the premiums with the company of their choice.

There's no question - As much as he wants people to THINK he's all about change, this is simple tax-and-spend Democrat crap from way back.

Why's the left so afraid of a Flat Tax?

my issue with the flat tax is that lets say im making 25k a year, and pay a flat tax of 20%. thats 5k right off the top. The rich guy who is making 250k a year, pays 50k in tax. yet he still has 200k to spend and live a comfortable life. the current tax system is alot more accomodating for those on the lower end of the income ladder than the flat tax system would. Plus, wouldnt logic dictate that companys and jobs will follow whereever has the least amount of taxation? wouldnt that lead to even more outsourcing?

heliochrome85 wrote:my issue with the flat tax is that lets say im making 25k a year, and pay a flat tax of 20%. thats 5k right off the top. The rich guy who is making 250k a year, pays 50k in tax.

In your own example, the second guy pays 10 times as much tax. Therefore, he effectively contributes 10 times as much to the country and state coffers. Why should he made to feel guilty about that and be forced to contribute more?

Plus, I can completely assure you that he is not getting 10 times the benefit that the first guy is - in fact, he gets exactly the same benefits! He does not get special treatment from how and where that tax money is spent (roads, schools, fire services, etc.) Therefore, once could even argue that the "return on his tax investment" is 10 times worse than the first guy!

It is simply not an equitable system the way we have it now. Sorry, I have to disagree with anything other than a flat tax system.

Z

no he isnt getting 10 times the benefits. here is the thing. i believe in social responsibility. if there is some way for us, as a society to avoid adding to the welfare roles by intelligent taxation, then we should be pursuing that avenue. with a flat tax, the burden is much greater on those with less than stellar incomes. they simply dont have the money to spend on taxes. a flat tax might work, IF and only if it has a minimum income requirement for taxation and that minimum income requirement is location based.

heliochrome85 wrote:no he isnt getting 10 times the benefits. here is the thing. i believe in social responsibility. if there is some way for us, as a society to avoid adding to the welfare roles by intelligent taxation, then we should be pursuing that avenue. with a flat tax, the burden is much greater on those with less than stellar incomes. they simply dont have the money to spend on taxes. a flat tax might work, IF and only if it has a minimum income requirement for taxation and that minimum income requirement is location based.

The location-based minimum is not needed. Simply because income and high-expenses (like houses) tend to go hand-in-hand.

More importantly, I forgot to point out in my flat-tax system, there is a loophole for the truly poor. And, that could be set high enough to make it work.

For example, let's say, hypothetically, that the bottom threshold is $10k single deduction for that.

So, the $25k/year wage earner would pay 0.2 * (25k - 10k) = $3k and the $250k/year wage earner would pay 0.2 * (250k - 10k) = $48k. Now it is not 10 times more tax ... more like 16 times more tax for the "rich" guy!

Would you consider that fairer? If not, then that lower "poverty" threshold can be adjusted up till it makes the lowest scale earners pay even less, so that the ratio is even higher.

I contend that a flat tax system can be made to work pretty easily and it would be far more equitable.

BTW, you may be surprised to learn that the true total percentages for "rich" folks near $250k / year is not that dramatically different from the lower wage earners. A flat tax would earn the country about the same amount of tax revenue that it gets today. Some people argue that we would actually collect more, since the system would be simpler, cost less (fewer tax enforcement issues), etc.

Before you reject a flat-tax system due to the normal socialist arguments that are made, I would strongly recommend reading up about it in depth!

Z

heliochrome85 wrote:i believe in social responsibility.

I am all for social responsibility as well, but the problem that I see is that the government has taken over these roles of the private sector (church, charity and private individuals.) Education, poor relief, Student Aid and retirement are all examples of how the Government has gone from 'Providing for the common good" to "Providing a cradle to grave life."I also resent the squandering of the money that I send to Washington DC on stupid ****. Did you know that the Congress runs a chain of food services restaurants that has lost $18 million of your money over the past 20 years? Congress refuses to privatize their food services even though their own surveys indicate that the food quality and the service are sub par. This is exactly the type of thing that in my opinion gets in the way with us being socially responsible and providing for the common good. I wouldnt have a problem with paying more in taxes if I actually got something out of it. I just resent the feeling from the Federal Government that they can spend my money better than I can!

I have been paying into SSI for most of my adult life and I DONT expect to be able to collect. If Congress HAD to abide by its OWN Retirement (ERISA) and Corporate Responsibilty (SOX404) laws most of them would be thrown in jail for how they ran SSI. Their is NO difference between Enron/World Comm and the Federal Government.