wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:27:56 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 07:14:04 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the
kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and
to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the
young to the old.
All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security
taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for
accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar
too low on the wealthy.

It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the
idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver
bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that
rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people
in the US it wouldn't balance the budget.
Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in
military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the
teahadists have in mind.

The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those
taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore.
You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the
obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like
Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is
very happy to have them.

Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another
year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was
less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line
on page 2 of the 1040.

They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to
see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you
have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly
deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code).
Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS
is taxable at your current rate.
It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom
line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"?
,.. "Send it in".




Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and
should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very
wealthy to game the system.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and
should be taxable here.

That's naive to say the least. The wealthy can afford to hire the
best and brightest to avoid that eventuality just as they do in other
countries.

Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400,
wrote:

Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and
should be taxable here.

That's naive to say the least. The wealthy can afford to hire the
best and brightest to avoid that eventuality just as they do in other
countries.


Where there is a will there is a way.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the
idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver
bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that
rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people
in the US it wouldn't balance the budget.
Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in
military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the
teahadists have in mind.

The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those
taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore.
You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the
obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like
Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is
very happy to have them.

Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another
year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was
less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line
on page 2 of the 1040.

They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to
see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you
have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly
deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code).
Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS
is taxable at your current rate.
It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom
line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"?
,.. "Send it in".




Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and
should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very
wealthy to game the system.

I am not sure how you enforce that.

It's call tax reform. Talk to people who are involved and you'll find
some solutions.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 00:10:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:09:01 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:29:57 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

It sounds like a panacea to simply tax the wealthy more and I like the
idea but I also understand it is not going to be any kind of silver
bullet. There are simply not enough rich people and they are not that
rich. If you took all of the hard assets from the richest 400 people
in the US it wouldn't balance the budget.
Higher federal taxes of all kinds for the wealthy, drastic cuts in
military spending, and you are much farther along the road than what the
teahadists have in mind.

The real question is whether the wealthy would actually pay those
taxes or whether they would simply move their money offshore.
You can certainly go get the moderately wealthy $250k-500k but the
obscenely wealthy are usually in international trade and just like
Exxon and GE, they can hide their money in a low tax country that is
very happy to have them.

Personally I think we all need to pay more taxes. This was another
year where I paid a record low amount on a $100k "line 39". It was
less than 11%. I used to always plan on 18-20% top line to bottom line
on page 2 of the 1040.

They are already means testing SS through the tax code but I expect to
see that being a more direct test. My bet is, within 5 years, if you
have any other income, a big percentage of that will be directly
deducted from your SS . (again, probably through the tax code).
Right now the means test is if you make more than $32k, 85% of your SS
is taxable at your current rate.
It will be as cumbersome as the current SS work sheet but the bottom
line for people with other income will be "how much SS did you get"?
,.. "Send it in".




Impose heavy tax penalties on storage of assets that are abroad and
should be taxable here. There's no societal purpose in allowing the very
wealthy to game the system.

I am not sure how you enforce that.

It's call tax reform. Talk to people who are involved and you'll find
some solutions.

I have seen the federal income taxes "reformed" many times over the
last half a century (I filed my first tax return in 1963) but I am
not sure any of the reforms actually raised the taxes higher on the
really rich.
They have the kinds of income that allows them to exploit tax
avoidance schemes and they have the money to elect politicians who
give them the tax avoidance loopholes to exploit. Usually it is in the
name of advancing some social policy or some kind of economic
stimulus.

So, your solution is to do nothing and have no engagement outside our
borders.

wrote:

Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says
they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they
want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic
controllers. (although both could easily be privatized)

Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you
want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it
over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas
such as food inspections, and there are many others.

In article ,
says...

wrote:

Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says
they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they
want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic
controllers. (although both could easily be privatized)

Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you
want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it
over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas
such as food inspections, and there are many others.

Kind of like that well oiled machine called the IRS and the Postal
Service, right?

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:53:00 -0400, A_boaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

wrote:

Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says
they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they
want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic
controllers. (although both could easily be privatized)

Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you
want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it
over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas
such as food inspections, and there are many others.

Kind of like that well oiled machine called the IRS and the Postal
Service, right?

Both of which work reasonably well.

hi,
i'm new here,
can u tell me about this site?

wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 12:49:42 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

Why is it democrats go to the extreme in every argument. Someone says
they want to cut the cost of government and immediately you say they
want to stop food inspections and shut down the air traffic
controllers. (although both could easily be privatized)
Why is it Republicans want to privatize just about everything? If you
want to ensure crappy services on which the public depends, then turn it
over to some for-profit corporation. That's especially true in areas
such as food inspections, and there are many others.

I only have to point to the failures in the government system.

If "the system" worked as is, we would not be talking about salmonella
and E-coli poisoning almost every week.
The publicizing of these incidents and the bad press for the company
involved is a far greater impact than any sanction the government is
likely to impose. Companies try to keep their products safe because
the market will punish them if they don't, not because of a government
inspector sitting in an office somewhere updating his fantasy baseball
team.

There are failures in every system, including among the companies that
"try to keep their products safe," and those that cut whatever corners
they can to save a buck.

We simply don't have nearly enough government food inspectors at any
level. We try to do just about everything in this country on the cheap.