OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Walt wrote:
The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make
the money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate
than if you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax
system.


Agreed.


A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds. And
the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate than
the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune simply by
virtue of outliving their parents.


Well, you have to pick your parents. The big problem with
the inheritance tax is
1- it seems to resonate with a lot of angry voters who
themselves aren't going to inherit anything except car
payments and possibly a mobile home
2- it is burden... often unbearable, literally... on small
family owned-businesses that are assessed by their average
gross. The burden is unbearable and the business is sold
(usually for not much money) when the net is much smaller
and the cash flow won't support the tax assessment. One way
to fix this would have been to seperate inherited propery
from inherited businesses.... but that was never even
proposed AFAIK.


Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the
amount over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no
FICA is due at all.


That would be one way to try to fix Social Security
long-term, but the same angry voters won't hear of it.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Walt said:
Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA


Dave wrote:
And, of course, get a much smaller percentage replacement of their income
through SS when they retire.

And the problem with that is.... what exactly?

Social Security is not an investment plan.

People who make over $90K/yr have much more comfortable
options to support them in retirement... unless they ****
away their money stupidly, which seems to be the new
American way.

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

DSK wrote:
Walt said:

Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA

Dave wrote:

And, of course, get a much smaller percentage replacement of their income
through SS when they retire.

As things are structured now, yes. But if you let social security
"reform" go through as proposed, the percentage replacement will be
about the same: i.e. SQUANTO.

But you are correct in that the difference in payouts from the social
security system mitigates the regressive nature of its collection.


And the problem with that is.... what exactly?

I don't believe Dave thinks it is a problem. Of course I'm sure he's
quite capable of speaking for himselef.

Social Security is not an investment plan.

People who make over $90K/yr have much more comfortable options to
support them in retirement... unless they **** away their money
stupidly, which seems to be the new American way.

That's new?

//Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA



Dave wrote:
And, of course, get a much smaller percentage replacement of their
income
through SS when they retire.


Walt wrote:
As things are structured now, yes. But if you let social security
"reform" go through as proposed, the percentage replacement will be
about the same: i.e. SQUANTO.


I thought the Bush/Cheney SS reform plan was pretty much
dead even before this recent election.

But you are correct in that the difference in payouts from the social
security system mitigates the regressive nature of its collection.


DSK wrote:
And the problem with that is.... what exactly?


Walt wrote:
I don't believe Dave thinks it is a problem. Of course I'm sure he's
quite capable of speaking for himselef.

Much of the time, yes.... he seems to get shy sometimes though.

DSK wrote:
Social Security is not an investment plan.


And I mention this because a LOT of people seem to think
that it is, or should be. And let me also say that I would
prefer to see Social Security fixed by shrinking it rather
than by growing it.



People who make over $90K/yr have much more comfortable options to
support them in retirement... unless they **** away their money
stupidly, which seems to be the new American way.


Walt wrote:
That's new?


Sure. $90k/year puts you in the upper brackets... of course
it's not so great as it used to be... wherein one was an
educated professional (who would receive, as part of their
education, some lessons in managing money) and/or one who
inherited wealth (and thus had one finances guarded by the
family banker). It was also before easy credit and a culture
of mass commercialism.

Nowadays, people rise into fairly lofty positions with quite
narrow educations, and also feel pressured to ignore
sensible household economics (if they were ever introduced
in the 1st place).

Are we supposed to feel sorry for the person who, at 65, is
earning $90k/yr + and is looking at retiring with a net
worth in the red & no retirement income beyond Social Security?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

DSK wrote:
Dave wrote:

I thought the Bush/Cheney SS reform plan was pretty much dead even
before this recent election.

Well, yes, but sometimes it's hard to resist giving the dead donkey
another whack for good measure.

Plus, something similar will be proposed again before too long. It's no
more dead than universal health care - hibernating, perhaps, but it'll
be back.


Sure. $90k/year puts you in the upper brackets... of course it's not so
great as it used to be... wherein one was an educated professional (who
would receive, as part of their education, some lessons in managing
money) and/or one who inherited wealth (and thus had one finances
guarded by the family banker).

I wasn't aware that managing money was part of the classical liberal
arts education.


It was also before easy credit and a
culture of mass commercialism.

Ah yes. I remember cash. When your wallet was empty you had to stop
buying things. Those were the days. Now you can borrow six figures at
20% interest without ever having to touch any of that dirty green paper.


Nowadays, people rise into fairly lofty positions with quite narrow
educations, and also feel pressured to ignore sensible household
economics (if they were ever introduced in the 1st place).

I know what you mean, I skipped home economics in Jr High school and
took shop instead.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for the person who, at 65, is earning
$90k/yr + and is looking at retiring with a net worth in the red & no
retirement income beyond Social Security?

Well yeah. It must suck to be that stupid.

//Walt

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Social Security is not an investment plan.


Dave wrote:
It has never been sold to voters as a welfare program.

Really? Then why all the partisan huckstering (including a
bit from you IIRC) comparing the "return" on Social Security
payments to the potential of the same amount invested in the
stock market?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the
amount over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no
FICA is due at all.


DSK said:
That would be one way to try to fix Social Security
long-term, but the same angry voters won't hear of it.


Dave wrote:
Would you change it from an insurance program into a welfare program by
increasing the amount covered by FICA but not increasing the benefits?


Sure. And I wouldn't feel guilty about it in the slightest.
Considering that benefits would (and should IMHO) always be
scaled to payments, it wouldn't be any more of a "welfare
system" than it is now.

I'd also make sure that everybody knew Social Security was a
retirement plan of the last resort. It was begun as a way of
keeping grandparents who could no longer work, but had no
pensions, from starving on street corners.

Tell us Dave, would *you* feel sorry for a 65 year old who
was earning $90k+/yr and had no assets, and who was looking
at retiring on his Social Security income?

DSK

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
I never implied that legislation, in and of itself, constitutes nannyism.

Yes you did. Several times actually.

Not even close. What I implied was that legislation which is designed to
protect us from ourselves is nannyism. You interpret what you read to suit
your prejudice.

When legislation is enacted to protect us from ourselves, then it is.
Why is this such a tough concept to grasp?


Is it such a tough concept to grasp that tax policy designed to discourage
corporations from spending money to the detriment of the national economy,
and contrary to the interests of the citizens, is not necessarily
"nannyism"?

How is advertising detrimental to the national economy? If a corporation
wastes its money on unproductive marketing, the company suffers. Are you
implying that companies don't have the right to be stupid and tank
themselves?? And yes, protecting corporations from themselves is nannyism.

Nannyism is the expectation that a Race Committee will prevent you from
sailing in more wind than your skill level can accomodate.

Is it nannyism when the race committee simply chooses not to have to round
up bodies and destroyed craft after allowing a race that shouldn't have been
run? You obviously haven't spent much time racing sailboats. Race
committees make such calls all the time, for whatever reason. I've seen
such calls made in America's Cup Racing as well.

It isn't prejudicial if it does not penalize someone or a particular
group. Does it penalize the sighted if braille is added to paper money?
Hardly.

Really? Does it happen for free?

Oh, well you've really opened a can of worms for yourself here, Doug. Let's
talk about all the myriad wealth-redistribution programs the government
fosters. They cost those for whom there is no apparent benefit far more
than putting a few embossed dots on paper money. Yet you seem to favor such
programs, while denying the blind the ability to determine what bills he
has. Pretty damned hypocritical.

If I am expected to pay for it, and to put up with the inconvenience of
changing all may money, then I am being penalized.

Your illogic boggles the mind.

Prejudice in terms of punitive taxation would be penalizing McDonalds for
advertising high-fat food while exempting Phillip Morris because they
advertise a website devoted to helping kids avoid smoking.

Oh yeah, those two things are exactly the same!



Did somebody promise you that life was always totally fair? If so, I hope
they gave you a lollipop too.


I've been around longer than you, Doug. I know all about inequity in
life.

Don't be so obstuse and hypocritical, then.

LOL. This from the King of Obtuse and Hypocrisy.

Don't be so arrogant as to preach to one whose experience trumps yours by
a wide margin.


I'm sure.

My only hope for you, Doug, is that somewhere, years down the road, you'll
see how delusional you've been. You're nowhere near as bright as you
believe yourself to be, but if you keep telling yourself that you are, I've
no doubt you'll be able to continue fooling yourself. But only yourself.

Max

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Walt" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:


Dave wrote:

So, Jon, to be a "fair share," what percentage of total income taxes
should
be paid by:

The top 5% in income earners?

5% of total income earned in the nation

The top 10% in income earners?

10% of total income earned in the nation

The top 50% in income earners?

50% of total income earned in the nation

Actually, the tax should be slightly skewed progressively (ie the top
earners pay more) because they gain more from the system. That's the way
the system is now, except that the max skew occurs in the people in the
50 - 75% brackets... about 5% skewed as I recall.


The problem lies in that the tax rate changes depening on how you make the
money. If you *earn* it by *working* it's taxed at a higher rate than if
you obtain it without working. That's my main beef with the tax system.

A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds. And
the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate than
the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune simply by
virtue of outliving their parents.

Plus, workers whose salary is more than $90k don't pay FICA on the amount
over that. If you make money via dividends or capital gains, no FICA is
due at all.



//Walt



Workers take little risk. Workers are paid before the stockholders, they get
fringe benefits untaxed and have many laws protecting them. Their pay is
gauranteed.

Stockholders and investors are not gauranteed anything. They have to use
saved money to invest. They don't get freebies such as health insurance,
retirement, and tax free money accounts.

People who make over 90K tend to work lots of overtime.

It's ridiculous to tax income. Everyone should pay the same fee to the
government every year. If everyone over 18 paid something like $3,000
regardless of income it would be the most equitable. I don't see how when
one earns more money they consume more government services. The federal
government has grown much too large and way out of the scope of the original
intent of the framers of our beloved Constitution.

If there were to be a progressive income tax then people and corporations
should get one vote for every dollar in income tax they pay.

OT / My pet peeve *fatties*
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
When was the last time you saw something
notable or particularly productive emanating from Norway? Gorgeous
country,
but stagnant.


How provincial.

Spoken like a true cannuck. You guys do live in provinces, doncha?

I'm hoping this is some form of drollery.

Lighten up, you frozen sod. The simple response of "how provincial" is
nothing more than a personal attack, hardly a viable form of debate. I was
being polite, if droll. I could have simply told you to . . . . . (take
your pick--there are lots of verbs and adverbs that might apply rather
appropriately).

Max