Wealth, What is it? - Page 2

TheMercenary · 06-13-2008, 01:19 PM

Opps, sorry about that! Fixed.

TheMercenary · 06-13-2008, 01:25 PM

Now that I think about it, what the hell kind of plan is that? The Donut Hole Tax Plan, aka the Medicare Donut Hole? That is stupid. Isn't the problem that everyone is being treated differently? Treat everyone the same regardless of income and make it fair? How about people who are self-employed and already have to pay more tax? How about the damm AMT?

BigV · 06-13-2008, 01:29 PM

Thanks for the cite.

So, now I'm confused. What are you outraged about? Setting aside for the moment your donuts and amts.... The change proposed by the Senator, what's your opinion of it?

TheMercenary · 06-13-2008, 01:33 PM

lookout123 · 06-13-2008, 01:34 PM

Everyone should pay the exact same percentage on every dollar. problem solved.

Clodfobble · 06-13-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mercenary

The problem I have with it is that it excludes a portion of people, those who make between 102k and 250k all togther, they don't have to pay a dime. People who make more than 250k have to pay if for every dime made. It is creating tiered systems where some pay nothing. Why should people who make an extra 47.9k or less not get taxed?

I interpreted it as every dollar up to $102,000 (which is currently already taxed), then your dollars above that are (still) tax-free, until $250,000.

So if you make $103 thousand a year, $102 will be taxed and $1 will be tax free. If you make $252 K, you will be taxed on $102, plus $2.

TheMercenary · 06-13-2008, 01:43 PM

read incorrectly, Clod squared me away.

Flint · 06-13-2008, 01:46 PM

We already have this problem. Some people make $1 too much to qualify for food stamps.

Clodfobble · 06-13-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mercenary

That is a problem. Why should those who make $249,999 get a break and those who make $250,000 get a penalty on $47,999?

They don't, dude. The guy who makes $250,000+ is taxed only on the dollars above $250,000, not all the money in between 102 and 250.

I'm not saying I agree with the policy at all, I'm just saying the guy who makes $250 K is not monumentally screwed while the guy who makes $249 gets a free ride.

TheMercenary · 06-13-2008, 01:50 PM

I guess I read it all wrong. I still don't agree with it. Everybody should pay the same amount of tax regardless of how much we make.

I guess I would just have to contract with the employer for all income to a Corp for services. Pay myself out of my Corp 100k as income, bury the rest in expenses.

classicman · 06-13-2008, 01:57 PM

I don't mind a different tax % based upon the amount of income, just make it the same for everyone. Thereby eliminating any bias.

lookout123 · 06-13-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I guess I read it all wrong. I still don't agree with it. Everybody should pay the same amount of tax regardless of how much we make.

I guess I would just have to contract with the employer for all income to a Corp for services. Pay myself out of my Corp 100k as income, bury the rest in expenses.

actually you'd probably want to pay yourself a professional fee of around $40K, then take the rest of the $100K as dividend (don't want to pay self employment tax on more than necessary) then expense everything right down to turn signal replacement bulbs to the corporation. or so i've heard.

BigV · 06-13-2008, 02:14 PM

So, I have a question for you, mercy, and the rest of you. Why do we have the current situation, full amount of Social Security income tax on income up to $102k, and then no Social Security income tax on income above $102k, in the first place??!!

It seems to me that the 3% of earners above that line had enough political clout to make the exemption happen. I can easily see the advantage for someone in that position. But why would the 97% of earners below that line support such a plan? What would be the motivation for those people?

lookout123 · 06-13-2008, 02:24 PM

IIRC it had something to do with an expectation of return from the social security system and how many dollars per person were needed to make it a sustainable over the long term. At least that was the rationale. It, like all taxes, is just a politicians' game. Charge everyone the same percentage on every dollar earned and everyone will see a lower percentage of their pay taken, while the top earners still pay more dollars.

TheMercenary · 06-13-2008, 02:36 PM

First let me state that a number of very good ideas have emerged to maintain the solvency of the SS system, among them all were to raise the cap. I will have to find the proposal that was most attractive, I think it was a Dem House or Senate member that proposed it. But anyway they showed that raising the cap to something like 120k ensured another 50 to 100 years of solvency. So why didn't they just do it and why was there no overwhelming support? The way I understand it, it was all politics, go figure huh...
anyway, by the time the bill made it through committee there was so much pork attached it was unpassable. Not only that, any time you have excess monies, even if they are potential monies that may exist in the future, politco's see that as a personal sump and a way to fund unfunded other stuff with a weak promise to pay it back before it is needed, but that never happens. The problem, as usual lies with Congress.

06-13-2008, 01:19 PM	#16
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Opps, sorry about that! Fixed. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

06-13-2008, 01:25 PM	#17
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Now that I think about it, what the hell kind of plan is that? The Donut Hole Tax Plan, aka the Medicare Donut Hole? That is stupid. Isn't the problem that everyone is being treated differently? Treat everyone the same regardless of income and make it fair? How about people who are self-employed and already have to pay more tax? How about the damm AMT? __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

06-13-2008, 01:29 PM	#18
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	Thanks for the cite. So, now I'm confused. What are you outraged about? Setting aside for the moment your donuts and amts.... The change proposed by the Senator, what's your opinion of it? __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.

06-13-2008, 01:33 PM	#19
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Last edited by TheMercenary; 06-13-2008 at 01:52 PM.

06-13-2008, 01:34 PM	#20
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	Everyone should pay the exact same percentage on every dollar. problem solved. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

06-13-2008, 01:43 PM	#22
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	read incorrectly, Clod squared me away. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012! Last edited by TheMercenary; 06-13-2008 at 01:51 PM.

06-13-2008, 01:46 PM	#23
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	We already have this problem. Some people make $1 too much to qualify for food stamps. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

06-13-2008, 01:50 PM	#25
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	I guess I read it all wrong. I still don't agree with it. Everybody should pay the same amount of tax regardless of how much we make. I guess I would just have to contract with the employer for all income to a Corp for services. Pay myself out of my Corp 100k as income, bury the rest in expenses. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

06-13-2008, 01:57 PM	#26
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	I don't mind a different tax % based upon the amount of income, just make it the same for everyone. Thereby eliminating any bias. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

06-13-2008, 02:14 PM	#28
BigV Goon Squad Leader Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,063	So, I have a question for you, mercy, and the rest of you. Why do we have the current situation, full amount of Social Security income tax on income up to $102k, and then no Social Security income tax on income above $102k, in the first place??!! It seems to me that the 3% of earners above that line had enough political clout to make the exemption happen. I can easily see the advantage for someone in that position. But why would the 97% of earners below that line support such a plan? What would be the motivation for those people? __________________ Be Just and Fear Not.

06-13-2008, 02:24 PM	#29
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	IIRC it had something to do with an expectation of return from the social security system and how many dollars per person were needed to make it a sustainable over the long term. At least that was the rationale. It, like all taxes, is just a politicians' game. Charge everyone the same percentage on every dollar earned and everyone will see a lower percentage of their pay taken, while the top earners still pay more dollars. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

06-13-2008, 02:36 PM	#30
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	First let me state that a number of very good ideas have emerged to maintain the solvency of the SS system, among them all were to raise the cap. I will have to find the proposal that was most attractive, I think it was a Dem House or Senate member that proposed it. But anyway they showed that raising the cap to something like 120k ensured another 50 to 100 years of solvency. So why didn't they just do it and why was there no overwhelming support? The way I understand it, it was all politics, go figure huh... anyway, by the time the bill made it through committee there was so much pork attached it was unpassable. Not only that, any time you have excess monies, even if they are potential monies that may exist in the future, politco's see that as a personal sump and a way to fund unfunded other stuff with a weak promise to pay it back before it is needed, but that never happens. The problem, as usual lies with Congress. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)