Poll on Taxes

[LogGrad98]

If the 40% is an overpayment, you'll get the refund on that.

As another individual who makes a substantial percent of his pay in bonuses I can tell you that over the past 10 years of my career, it always is overpayment. I get really large tax returns. I would much rather have that money each month. Of course, it's not a bad thing getting a big return, we use the money to invest and pay bills. But I agree with Cope that this system needs a change.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm not jumping on that bandwagon so quickly.

So what if you raise taxes if the people spending that money do so improperly?
It won't do a bit of good. That's how we got in this mess in the first place.

Another interesting thought is that money problems are never rooted in money.
Those money problems are never solved by throwing more money at them.

This.

In fact it is the attitude of people like that which scares me. Lets raise those taxes first. Get the money flowing. Oh yeah and maybe later we can look at trimming off some spending as long as it is under the other party's pork and not our own.

 

[babe]

This.

In fact it is the attitude of people like that which scares me. Lets raise those taxes first. Get the money flowing. Oh yeah and maybe later we can look at trimming off some spending as long as it is under the other party's pork and not our own.

I think my overall contributions in this forum sorta lay out my attitude already. After looking at our military adventurism proclivities, and our bailout idiocy, I consider it a public service to keep money outta the hands of our government. We need to do a thorough criminal investigation of our influence pedlers and the favors/contracts/decisions/policies they've bought, and charge them for it all.

I know we have a lot of people relying on entitlements of some kind, but I heatedly object to "Social Security" being called an "entitlement". Just the opposite. It's a Ponzi Scheme the government has been running, figuring on having enough chumps coming along to keep the ball rolling, while instead of managing the funds collected in the interest of the people whose money it is, have used it to fund other government activities, mostly in the interests of their lobbyists/major corporate support base. The social security system needs to be legitimized by managing it as a true retirement fund, with contributors' funds earning a direct return on their investment. The parts of "social security" that are essentially insurance contracts or welfare payments need to be put in another budget category and funded separately. Until that is done, "Social Security" is really just another income tax, and the obligations are really just "welfare" payments. I say don't give our politicians more money to spend, and make them learn to speak straight English and keep fiduciary accounts solvent.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I think my overall contributions in this forum sorta lay out my attitude already. After looking at our military adventurism proclivities, and our bailout idiocy, I consider it a public service to keep money outta the hands of our government. We need to do a thorough criminal investigation of our influence pedlers and the favors/contracts/decisions/policies they've bought, and charge them for it all.

I know we have a lot of people relying on entitlements of some kind, but I heatedly object to "Social Security" being called an "entitlement". Just the opposite. It's a Ponzi Scheme the government has been running, figuring on having enough chumps coming along to keep the ball rolling, while instead of managing the funds collected in the interest of the people whose money it is, have used it to fund other government activities, mostly in the interests of their lobbyists/major corporate support base. The social security system needs to be legitimized by managing it as a true retirement fund, with contributors' funds earning a direct return on their investment. The parts of "social security" that are essentially insurance contracts or welfare payments need to be put in another budget category and funded separately. Until that is done, "Social Security" is really just another income tax, and the obligations are really just "welfare" payments. I say don't give our politicians more money to spend, and make them learn to speak straight English and keep fiduciary accounts solvent.

I agree that Social Security shouldn't be funding other projects. But you are dead wrong about making it a real retirement plan and only paying everyone what their individual plan has earned.

That goes against the spirit of Social Security.

Where would everyone be right now after the market tanked? Where would they have been a few years ago when it tanked?

I say if you want a true retirement plan, start one. But that isn't what Social Security is intended to be.

 

[babe]

Fair enough. I never expected anything back from social security, though, because I have always regarded it as a tax/ripoff.

Most Americans have gone along with the "ideal" of government programs taking care of people with what you call "the spirit of Social Security", and I will accept your position on the basis that if/since this government rightly "belongs" to the people and that the "people" if they so choose, might organize programs like this, for a whole lot of good reasons or even noble aspirations for social justice.

I just see where we've been betrayed in our trust and expectations, and how it looks like it's only going more and more off from what we would justly expect.

And, no, I have not thought it a good idea to "invest" in our so-called "markets" since various "insiders" seem to always be working them. A better way to "invest" social security funds would be to do some very good infrastructure projects with carefully analyzed payoffs in improving our productivity/competitive economic position. On my list of appropriate projects to be paid for out of social security funds, with the government issuing bonds in the name of the social security administration, to be paid back with either taxes or receipts from the projects. . . . nuclear power plants, highways, water projects, and other things that would result in widespread benefits to all over the years. The reason I say "nuclear" power projects specifically is that such projects can be done with updated technology and multiple safety factors and still have a very good return on the investment. Solar, wind, water, no so much. But anyway, whatever people can see as the best type of project, that's what to do.

You get jobs in construction, more downstream jobs in new businesses finding a competitive market niche because of the available transportation, power, or other resources. . . . the economy grows, and even lower tax rates overall downstream. And the "social security funds" earn great interest and still belong to the workers they came from.

The folks who would still be taken care of with honest tax allocations would be enjoying a society that does honestly care for those who honestly need the care. I think that's the true "spirit" you ascribe to and incorporate in the social security plan.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Fair enough. I never expected anything back from social security, though, because I have always regarded it as a tax/ripoff.

Most Americans have gone along with the "ideal" of government programs taking care of people with what you call "the spirit of Social Security", and I will accept your position on the basis that if/since this government rightly "belongs" to the people and that the "people" if they so choose, might organize programs like this, for a whole lot of good reasons or even noble aspirations for social justice.

I just see where we've been betrayed in our trust and expectations, and how it looks like it's only going more and more off from what we would justly expect.

And, no, I have not thought it a good idea to "invest" in our so-called "markets" since various "insiders" seem to always be working them. A better way to "invest" social security funds would be to do some very good infrastructure projects with carefully analyzed payoffs in improving our productivity/competitive economic position. On my list of appropriate projects to be paid for out of social security funds, with the government issuing bonds in the name of the social security administration, to be paid back with either taxes or receipts from the projects. . . . nuclear power plants, highways, water projects, and other things that would result in widespread benefits to all over the years. The reason I say "nuclear" power projects specifically is that such projects can be done with updated technology and multiple safety factors and still have a very good return on the investment. Solar, wind, water, no so much. But anyway, whatever people can see as the best type of project, that's what to do.

You get jobs in construction, more downstream jobs in new businesses finding a competitive market niche because of the available transportation, power, or other resources. . . . the economy grows, and even lower tax rates overall downstream. And the "social security funds" earn great interest and still belong to the workers they came from.

The folks who would still be taken care of with honest tax allocations would be enjoying a society that does honestly care for those who honestly need the care. I think that's the true "spirit" you ascribe to and incorporate in the social security plan.

I agree with about 90% of what you posted.

I actually expect to get some Social Security someday. I have been paying into it for almost 20 years now, I better get something back. I don't expect it to be enough to live off of, but I do expect it to be enough to feed me as long as I have money for everything else, and possibly even provide some spending cash on top of the food money.

As for the infrastructure- I agree. I don't think we should be using Social Security to pay for it, but I agree that it should be priority #1 for this nation right now. I disagree on putting nuclear power above solar, wind, and water though. Hydroelectric power is actually my favorite type. And I don't know if it costs less or whatever, but it adds water in addition to power. But those small points aside, I totally agree that infrastructure should be our focus. Pay for it with defense funds, waste, bonds, and so on.

I don't look at Social Security as a handout, and I don't look at it as a tax that I will never see again. Perhaps I will regret that someday, but I doubt it. I look at Social Security as a safety net. If I utterly fail in all of my investments, get sued for everything I own, get robbed in some ponzi scheme, or whatever the case may be, I know I will at least have money to eat when I am old. I may not have a roof over my head, but I will have food in my belly.

Of course I am striving for a better retirement. But at least I know that if worse comes to worse, I will eat. And it's not a handout. Like I said, I'be been paying into it for almost 20 years now and still have over 20 more to go.

 

[moevillini]

As another individual who makes a substantial percent of his pay in bonuses I can tell you that over the past 10 years of my career, it always is overpayment. I get really large tax returns. I would much rather have that money each month. Of course, it's not a bad thing getting a big return, we use the money to invest and pay bills. But I agree with Cope that this system needs a change.

Maybe adjust your with-holding so you're having less withheld. Fill out a new W-4 and increase the number of allowances you claim.

 

[sirkickyass]

I am shocked, shocked!, that this thread turned into some overheated rhetoric.

 

[moevillini]

while it may seem to have some characteristics of a Ponzi scheme, Social Security is really more of an insurance plan - - you're paying premiums now in return for a payout later.

Seems sort of funny how folks can get so riled up about paying into social security yet they pay their automobile insurance and homeowners premiums and hope they'll never have to collect on those dollars!

 

[babe]

while it may seem to have some characteristics of a Ponzi scheme, Social Security is really more of an insurance plan - - you're paying premiums now in return for a payout later.

Seems sort of funny how folks can get so riled up about paying into social security yet they pay their automobile insurance and homeowners premiums and hope they'll never have to collect on those dollars!

insurance is another of my pet peeves. I understand the statistics in underwriting risks. Maybe we could view Insurance Companies as good citizens or something positive, for all the lobbying they do to make us all buckle up, eat less fat and cholesterol, quit smoking, or smoke outdoors, get cities, counties and states to adopt building codes that make our buildings more fireproof, earthquake-resistant, etc , and pass mandatory insurance laws like we have to have on our cars and now health and such. But I can hear their cash registers clinking and clanging as they bill us at rates regulated by outdated risk stats and force us to be less risky. . . .

But if my "rhetoric" seems riled up on the social security issue, fact is I find it all pretty amusing how so many of us are just happy to be worked over the way we are. I'm not a hothead. I don't go to bars and get into fistfights with folks who don't walk my line. Mostly I'm just sad to see how we are. The "rhetoric" is just what it takes to make the point.

All of this comes home to roost in my general view that taxes, and a lot of other institutions in our society, are not serving us well.

 

[LogGrad98]

Maybe adjust your with-holding so you're having less withheld. Fill out a new W-4 and increase the number of allowances you claim.

It has little to no impact on bonuses. They view a bonus as if that is your normal salary, so it kicks you into another tax bracket for that check. As it is I claim 9 on my W-4 and I still get large sums back on tax returns. I wish they would not count bonuses like that, or that they would tax them at the rate your regular check gets taxed at. I know they do it so the CEO's can't sign on for a salary of $50k and then get a $5 million bonus at the lower tax rate, but it still slams us middle level guys.

 

[GoJazz]

I would only be for increased taxes with a total revamp of government. Currently I feel any money I paid in extra taxes would be completely wasted. I would still hold that the only way out of the mess we are currently in (Debt Issues) would be to increase taxes and reduce spending. I would start reducing spending in Military Spending, followed by eliminating government waste. At that point I would temporarly raise taxes on EVERYONE to quickly pay down the debt.

 

[The-Joker]

I've always liked FairTax, as far as smart and balanced tax system. Does away with income tax (I'm not sure how it applies to corporations) and the only tax anyone pays is a 20ish% sales tax.


Taxed only on what you spend, not what you make...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

probably the only grassroots teaparty thing I agree with.

 

[TroutBum]

This is actually a decent thread to read. It's amazing how that happens once Hopper is gone.

 

[babe]

I've always liked FairTax, as far as smart and balanced tax system. Does away with income tax (I'm not sure how it applies to corporations) and the only tax anyone pays is a 20ish% sales tax.


Taxed only on what you spend, not what you make...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

probably the only grassroots teaparty thing I agree with.

The progressives with their "Think globally, act locally" campaign have been systematically getting things organized to effectively collect sales taxes and throw the bums who do blackmarket business in jail. Well, except for backstreet drug dealers I 'spose. I don't expect this means they will give up any other revenue stream. The 20% "Fair Tax" will be a tax increase. Maybe there will be talk of "phasing it in" stepwise while "phasing out" other revenues, but they'll really only do the "phasing in" part.

 

[Agoxlea]

This is actually a decent thread to read. It's amazing how that happens once Hopper is gone.

When did that happen and how? Did she retreat to her alternate reality?

 

[GoJazz]

I don't understand how a 20% sales tax is a tax increase? I pay over 20% income tax plus all the other 100's of taxes I pay in addition. (car registration, gas tax, ect) I see a flat tax as a decrease for me and an increase only on those people who pay basically no income tax.

 

[babe]

When did that happen and how? Did she retreat to her alternate reality?

She tells me some of the pics she posted had some bad words that needed enlargement to see, but Kicky found them and even though she apologized you know how it is with lawyers and all. Ignorance is no excuse.

I wish I could've had a lawyer like Kicky when I needed one. He burns the midnight oil making sure he's got the case nailed.

The alternate reality is over on JazzHacks.com, where Ain't has a new blues thread. He done tol me I outta pertend tah be him an' bump his blues thread in here jus fer da fun ofit.

Sappa says she'll be back in a week, les'n Kicky finds some more infractions real quick.

 

[babe]

I don't understand how a 20% sales tax is a tax increase? I pay over 20% income tax plus all the other 100's of taxes I pay in addition. (car registration, gas tax, ect) I see a flat tax as a decrease for me and an increase only on those people who pay basically no income tax.

Of course it wouldn't be if the other taxes went away. I would think the same thing 'cept since when have government folks ever closed out one of their income streams.

 

[The-Joker]

I don't understand how a 20% sales tax is a tax increase? I pay over 20% income tax plus all the other 100's of taxes I pay in addition. (car registration, gas tax, ect) I see a flat tax as a decrease for me and an increase only on those people who pay basically no income tax.

Of course the fair tax is essentially an expanded luxury tax... because I certainly don't notice if the price of fruit loops goes up 20%. And I think most of the people in congress like their luxuries... but a man can dream can't he