Fair share of TAXES
I HATE when I hear people saying the rich don't pay there 'FAIR SHARE!!!!!!'
Quote: SOOPOO
I HATE when I hear people saying the rich don't pay there 'FAIR SHARE!!!!!!'
In the class warfare battle that Obama supports and
nurtures, a rich persons fair share is almost all of
their income. Its not fair until everybody is equally
miserable. Unless your Obama, of course, who's
going to be living on a $35mil 8500 sq ft compound
in Hawaii, bought by his rich Dem friends, when
he leaves office.
Quote: SOOPOOI HATE when I hear people saying the rich don't pay there 'FAIR SHARE!!!!!!'
The income gap between the rich & the poor continues to widen, so it's hard to imagine that the tax system is preventing the wealthy from getting even more wealthy.
If it starts going the other way, post an update.
I think the Republican fair tax system imagines the countryside looking like a few mini kingdoms with a landscape of thousands of shacks.
Quote: rxwinewith a landscape of thousands of shacks.
Nobody is stopping the shack people from making
their fortune, just like nobody stopped the well off.
The vast (VAST) majority of so called rich people
made their money with hard work, not inheritance.
Even Romney, who gave his inheritance to charity.
Who does he think he is..
Quote: rxwineThe income gap between the rich & the poor continues to widen, so it's hard to imagine that the tax system is preventing the wealthy from getting even more wealthy.
If it starts going the other way, post an update.
I think the Republican fair tax system imagines the countryside looking like a few mini kingdoms with a landscape of thousands of shacks.
Actually it is (counterintuitively) just the opposite. If you lived in a world where you had a large pile of money and you wanted to ensure that no one else ever accumulated one, what tool could possibly work better than a hefty income tax?
Quite frankly, I think people are just too greedy. It really doesn't take much money to live a happy fulfilling life, and nobody needs MILLIONS of dollars a year to live.
Quote: ewjones080
It really doesn't take much money to live a happy fulfilling life,.
Says who? You mean there's just one way of living
and everybody should be doing that?
It was tried in the old Soviet Union and was a dismal
failure. There was no incentive to do better if it was
just going to be taken away from you. So everybody
falls into doing just enough to get by. Wait in long
lines for toilet paper and bread, because there's no
free market that encourages competition. You can't
be fired from your job, so just show up drunk 3 times
a week and do the least amount of work possible.
The Workers Paradise, thats what it was supposed to be.
What a joke.
Quote: ewjones080But there's this conservative Republican idea that, "hey, I worked really hard for my money, I wanna keep it, the lower class shouldn't be entitled to it." But in a lot of ways they're just taking money from the lower class. The Reverse Mortgage is a prime example. It was a product developed not to help people, but to make a profit. Certainly the one buying this bad product deserves some blame, but the majority lies with the con man offering it. They charge ridiculous fees and interest, and while the bank gets to make a ton of profit, thousands of others are getting themselves deeper in debt.
Quite frankly, I think people are just too greedy. It really doesn't take much money to live a happy fulfilling life, and nobody needs MILLIONS of dollars a year to live.
Respectfully, this is a bunch of crap. Every idea is designed to make money, not 'help people'. Some products are more expensive than others. For example, car title loan places charge about 100% annual interest on car equity loans, which is about 8% a month. This sounds like a lot, until you realize that they are replacing loanshark guys who used to charge 10% a WEEK! So this car loan, which is designed to make money and not 'help people', and has a very high interest rate, ends up saving people enormous amounts of money.
And who are you to decide how much money someone else need to live? That's not your call buddy. Imagine how much worse off the world would be if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had decided they was 'rich enough' when they were worth $100 million and he shut down Microsoft and Apple, or even if they just retired and played tennis instead of working. Would the world be a better place?
Quote: SOOPOO(FICA is NOT a tax, it is your contribution to the social security system).
I'm not going to get into the rest of this, but FICA is absolutely a tax.
Quote: 26 USC Chapter 21, Federal Insurance Contributions Act
CHAPTER 21 - FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT
Subchapter Sec.(!1)
A. Tax on employees 3101
B. Tax on employers 3111
C. General provisions 3121
...
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle C - Employment Taxes
CHAPTER 21 - FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS ACT
Subchapter A - Tax on Employees
-HEAD-
Sec. 3101. Rate of tax
-STATUTE-
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income
of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the
wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) received by him with respect
to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) -
In cases of wages received during: The rate shall be:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1984, 1985, 1986, or 1987 5.7 percent
1988 or 1989 6.06 percent
1990 or thereafter 6.2 percent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/26C21.txt
Quote: EvenBobNobody is stopping the shack people from making
their fortune,s..
And when they become wealthy, they can start paying a progressive tax. Simple.
Quote: bigfoot66Respectfully, this is a bunch of crap. Every idea is designed to make money, not 'help people'. Some products are more expensive than others. For example, car title loan places charge about 100% annual interest on car equity loans, which is about 8% a month. This sounds like a lot, until you realize that they are replacing loanshark guys who used to charge 10% a WEEK! So this car loan, which is designed to make money and not 'help people', and has a very high interest rate, ends up saving people enormous amounts of money.
And who are you to decide how much money someone else need to live? That's not your call buddy. Imagine how much worse off the world would be if Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had decided they was 'rich enough' when they were worth $100 million and he shut down Microsoft and Apple, or even if they just retired and played tennis instead of working. Would the world be a better place?
Why is it all about money?? Why can't it be about helping people? I do believe the capitalist idea is a good thing for lot of society, specifically Apple and Microsoft. And I wasn't saying people should only make so much money and then stop working, I'm saying my PERSONAL choice of how I want to live is probably a lot different than others. I would probably spend my money like the CEO for that Japanese company, who divied up his bonus to all the lower level employees. He didn't NEED that bonus, while a lot of others probably did, and by doing what he did, it strengthened the company and boosted morale.
Quote: bigfoot66Consider that the government does not owe you SS and can ammend or end the benefits anytime they choose.
But SS is owed to you when you retire, or reach 62.
The only way you won't get paid is if you didn't pay
in for long enough, or you made too much money
in the period you're filing for.
SS is almost untouchable even by the Fed's. Its protected
from judgements, and even the IRS can only take a
small percentage if you're behind on your taxes. Saying
the gov't can end benefits anytine they choose just isn't
true. Congress has bent over backwards for decades to
protect SS and make sure old people aren't made homeless
from an interuption in benefits.
Quote: EvenBob
SS is almost untouchable even by the Fed's. Its protected
from judgements, and even the IRS can only take a
small percentage if you're behind on your taxes. Saying
the gov't can end benefits anytine they choose just isn't
true. Congress has bent over backwards for decades to
protect SS and make sure old people aren't made homeless
from an interuption in benefits.
All of this is true TODAY.
Quote: EvenBob
But SS is owed to you when you retire, or reach 62.
The only way you won't get paid is if you didn't pay
in for long enough, or you made too much money
in the period you're filing for.
Nobody owes you anything. Where is the contract you have with the SS administration where they promise you benefits? everything else you wrote is true under the current set of rules. Congress can ammend the rules or even end the program entirely tomorrow if they so choose.
If you purchase an annuity and the company decides they don't want to pay you can compell them to pay you through litigation. If the government decides they don't want to pay you your Social Security annuity they have absolute immunity. You can't even file a lawsuit.
The people on this forum ought to be better at math than most and ought to realize that a pyramid scheme structure is by its very nature unsustainable which means that a decrease in benefits is inevitable, so this is not speculation but a prediction of what absolutely must happen to the SS program some time in the future.
Quote: MakingBookEvery rich person took a risk. Many, many poor people played it safe their entire life.
Yeah, soldiers take a bigger risk than starting a business. So what.
here's the Poe's Law smiley :)
I'd rather have everyone (except the lowest earners...maybe under $50k for a family and graduated down) pay the same % of their income in taxes--flat tax, fair tax, whatever--on all income with only a very few deductions. Collect a smaller % on more $$ and do away with progressive taxes. Why should the guy who makes more pay a higher % of the total? His car uses no more of the road than mine does...
The people I know who make between $250k and a million do something others don't do consistently. They don't necessarily work "harder" physically, but they put everything they have into their work. Boss wants to talk in the middle of the big ball game? The call gets taken. Someone needs you in Palo Alto tomorrow? They get on the flight. Someone needs to step up and take responsibility for a huge project? They do it, at the risk of being fired if they fail. This job is not going anywhere? They move on.
They take risks many of us (including me) don't take. They take on stress many of us don't take on. They get educations (and pay off the loans for them) that many of us don't bother with. They go in professions, like sales, that are do or die--if you don't get the job done, you get canned.
Am I saying everyone that doesn't earn that much is a bum? Nope. There are great people who will never earn that much and work their butts off. Many of us, though, take the safe road to lesser income. If we do that, how can we want to take more from those who make more? Put everyone on the same plan and end all the class warfare bullcrap.
Then go out and earn the very best amount of money you can!!
Quote: bigfoot66All of this is true TODAY.
Nobody owes you anything. Where is the contract you have with the SS administration where they promise you benefits?
Where it says if you meet the requirements, you will
receive the benefits. Ever see or hear of anybody
losing their SS for any other reason than fraud?
It doesn't say 'keep paying in and maybe you'll get
benefits, maybe you won't.' It says you will get
benefits if you live long enough. Thats a promise.
Yeah, they waste their time and money raising a family
I think the answer is going to be to revoke people's benefitst that have too much other income or assets when they hit retirement age. The give back will be that they are allowed to take a some amount out of their retirement accounts income tax free.
I am 45 and my retirement age for SS is 67 today....I expect it to go to at least 70 and plan on getting nothing back...in fact, they should just tell me that now if it will fix the system for folks that will rely on it as their only income stream at retirement age. It seems like the system has been going broke since I started paying in to it, so I just am not counting on it at all to help with my retirement income needs.
Quote: Paradigm
I am 45 and my retirement age for SS is 67 today....I expect it to go to at least 70 and plan on getting nothing back.
Yes, yes, people were saying the same thing when
I was 45, and now we're all collecting. The next
generation always thinks they'll be the one's to
get screwed.
Quote: EvenBobWhere it says if you meet the requirements, you will
receive the benefits. Ever see or hear of anybody
losing their SS for any other reason than fraud?
This is not a contract. Also, it never has happened, therefore it never will, right Bob?
Quote: EvenBob
It doesn't say 'keep paying in and maybe you'll get
benefits, maybe you won't.' It says you will get
benefits if you live long enough. Thats a promise.
Yes Yes, the government never breaks their promises do they? It is mathematically impossible to continue the current scheme Bob and everybody knows it. We should all be heaping on the same comments we make to people who have that brand new roullette progressive betting system that is a guaranteed winner. The government promises something that is mathematically impossible: That you can pay X into a system that has no investments, recieve Y in benefits where Y>X, and this system is forever sustainable. Bob I know for a fact that you are smarter than this.
Quote: EvenBobYes, yes, people were saying the same thing when
I was 45, and now we're all collecting. The next
generation always thinks they'll be the one's to
get screwed.
One of them has to be right eventually!
Correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds like they are reducing the benefits for currentl retirees based on their other income sources.
Soon the new promise will be: you get taxed on a 100% of your benefits at 100% tax rate if you have too much other income (i.e. thank you for playing......you can collect your parting gift at the Player's Club counter).
Quote: bigfoot66This is not a contract.
Its a form of contract.
Quote: bigfoot66It is mathematically impossible to continue the current scheme
They will have to change the parameters of the
current program, but nobody will get screwed
out of what they paid in.
Quote: Paradigm.used to be SS benefits were completely tax free, then 50% of the benefits were taxable if you made to much, now 85% is taxable if you make too much....
The program is a work in progress, just like anything
thats tied to the economy.
Ok, let's say you are. Even then, who are these families making a couple hundred grand a year? They're the lawyers, the doctors, the executives at Fortune 500 companies that by in large have worked their butts off and are very good at what they do. Do we really have the right to tell them that they don't deserve their money? If you answered yes to both, here is your
party.
This is something I've been thinking about quite a bit. I'm 25, making a reasonable salary with six figures within reach, and the thought of having a family just doesn't seem within reach. There are many places to lay blame, but over-taxation is just one of them.
On FICA - By definition, it's a tax. In reality though, it's already earmarked for other uses so it isn't the same as paying into the bucket like most of us do with federal income taxes (My belief is that your average WoVer is part of the 53%). Even though the federal government stole from social security for decades, TECHNICALLY that money is stilled owed back to social security. So I agree with Bob on this one, I guess.
Quote: EvenBobIts a form of contract.
I'll have to remember that next time someone sticks a gun in my ribs, demands my wallet and says, hey, I might give this back to you 40 years from now, that is a 'form of contract' in Bob's mind.
edit: Go ahead and explain to me how some contracts only require the consent of one party.
Quote: EvenBob
They will have to change the parameters of the
current program, but nobody will get screwed
out of what they paid in.
So you think that Social Security checks will be being mailed out (or an equivalent) 500 years from now, 1000 years from now, 10,000 years from now? No one is gonna get screwed? This is absurd. Eventually, some set of parents will not be able to keep up the proud American tradition of stealing from their children.
Quote: MathExtremistI'm not going to get into the rest of this, but FICA is absolutely a tax.
If FICA is a tax, then Social Security is an entitlement. You can't have it both ways..... By the way, do you correct people who say 'I payed into the sysytem...'. Those who use that phrase know it is not a real tax, but rather a contribution.
Check with the man in the mirror. Putting a family on hold is a bad choice.
Quote: SOOPOOIf FICA is a tax, then Social Security is an entitlement. You can't have it both ways..... By the way, do you correct people who say 'I payed into the sysytem...'. Those who use that phrase know it is not a real tax, but rather a contribution.
Isn't it just the opposite? If it is a tax, they can do with it as they wish, you have no "right" to tax money. Ownership transfers from you to them. Poof! Its theirs now and they can do with it as they please.
If it is a contribution to a retirement account, then it is still your money, held in trust by the government. You own it and are ENTITLED to it, your name is on the title so to speak.
Quote: bigfoot66
So you think that Social Security checks will be being mailed out (or an equivalent) 500 years from now, 1000 years from now, 10,000 years from now?
First of all, the gov't went paperless last year, no
more paper checks. Even my son in the military
has his pay direct deposited. In 500 years they
will have SS modified to fit those times, how else.
You think its the same now as it was in 1940? Not
even close.
Quote: EvenBobIn 500 years they
will have SS modified to fit those times
I'm hoping for helper robots by 500 years. They'll till the fields, run our baths, adjust our Ion defragmatamoozers, or whatever. Of course, they'll probably just take over one day too, but the good with bad.
Quote: rxwineI'm hoping for helper robots by 500 years.
Toenail clipping bots, wipe our butts bots, walk the
dog bots, wash the car bots, target practice bots.
Looking forward to it..
Quote: RonCI don't understand why people who supposedly believe in the American Dream advocate confiscatory taxation. I don't know about the "rich"--those making millions off of their investments--but I do know about the upper income people that are in my circle of friends. The people who want to raise taxes treat them like some kind of lepers or something for the huge crime of being successful at what they do. They want to raise taxes on anyone making over $250k or wait...make that $200k...no wait...how low will they go?
I'd rather have everyone (except the lowest earners...maybe under $50k for a family and graduated down) pay the same % of their income in taxes--flat tax, fair tax, whatever--on all income with only a very few deductions. Collect a smaller % on more $$ and do away with progressive taxes. Why should the guy who makes more pay a higher % of the total? His car uses no more of the road than mine does...
The people I know who make between $250k and a million do something others don't do consistently. They don't necessarily work "harder" physically, but they put everything they have into their work. Boss wants to talk in the middle of the big ball game? The call gets taken. Someone needs you in Palo Alto tomorrow? They get on the flight. Someone needs to step up and take responsibility for a huge project? They do it, at the risk of being fired if they fail. This job is not going anywhere? They move on.
They take risks many of us (including me) don't take. They take on stress many of us don't take on. They get educations (and pay off the loans for them) that many of us don't bother with. They go in professions, like sales, that are do or die--if you don't get the job done, you get canned.
Am I saying everyone that doesn't earn that much is a bum? Nope. There are great people who will never earn that much and work their butts off. Many of us, though, take the safe road to lesser income. If we do that, how can we want to take more from those who make more? Put everyone on the same plan and end all the class warfare bullcrap.
Then go out and earn the very best amount of money you can!!
Respectfully, you are full of crap.
Edited to add: there is precedent for Respectfully.
People who are making like 20-30x per capita, different rules can apply.
Will Smith
^ Read the transcript and watch the last 30 seconds
Both of the sentences in what was your post from Page 1 were lifted directly from copywritten sources without attribution. Your post has been edited to remove those sentences. You are free to quote statements from articles that you find on the Internet, but if you are going to do so, you must attribute them to the appropriate source. Otherwise, you should paraphrase, at a minimum.
I will let the violation go with just an in-thread Warning this time, but please be aware that this will result in a suspension in the future.
That's all anyone can expect from an Administrator.
Quote: EvenBobThe program is a work in progress, just like anything
thats tied to the economy.
So what is the difference between your definition of the some members of the generation under 40 getting screwed and a program that is a "work in process" where the "process" has been reducing net after tax benefits to recipients over the last 20 years?
They look very similar.
Quote: DigitalTimRespectfully, you are full of crap.
Edited to add: there is precedent for Respectfully.
Perhaps I am worthy of your thinly disguised personal insult.
There are others who probably think so, of course, but they don't come out and say it--they make arguments for why they don't think the things I suggest would work or are correct. You, well that is too much work for you...you just jump in and say something and throw a "respectfully" on it.
The difference between the two? I respect the opinion of others who disagree with me. You? Not so much.
Quote: buzzpaff" Every rich person took a risk. Many, many poor people played it safe their entire life. "
Yeah, they waste their time and money raising a family
That is a choice, they chose time with the family over work. To them it was a good choice, but that means you do not make as much money.
Good father? **** ***, GO HOME AND PLAY WITH YOUR KIDS! YOU WANNA WORK HERE? CLOSE!"---Alec Baldwin in "Glengarry, Glen Ross"
IOW, you cannot say that you are a good family man and expect the big paycheck for it.
I suppose he was too much in live with his wife though.
Quote: SOOPOOIf FICA is a tax, then Social Security is an entitlement. You can't have it both ways..... By the way, do you correct people who say 'I payed into the sysytem...'. Those who use that phrase know it is not a real tax, but rather a contribution.
I'm not sure where you got the impression that I am/was "trying to have it both ways", as I clearly said I wasn't getting into this. My thoughts on taxation and the role of government in society (and vice-versa) are not for this thread.
However, Congress calls FICA a tax, and specifically its components OASDI (Social Security) and Medicare. That's good enough for me, and I'm not sure why you need to quibble with it. To repeat the IRS code:
Quote: FICA provisions in IRS code
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income
of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages...
(b) Hospital insurance
In addition to the tax imposed by the preceding subsection, there
is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to
the following percentages...
So if there is a drive to be wealthy, there is no time for Church and Family, but plenty of time idled doing what one wants to do. Like a new tattoo, this taxation issue has extended the "Its about me, not we or us" issue by the roots.
