U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-23-2008, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 7,561,052 times
Reputation: 1023

Advertisements

saganista wrote:
"Most of them do somehow grudgingly manage to accomodate themselves to the many benefits that society provides."


Does the word 'disingenuous' come to mind?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2008, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
You've told us many times that you don't contribute to these things. Changing your story?
The law allowed me to "opt out".

Got it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
5,915 posts, read 7,084,905 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
The law allowed me to "opt out".

Got it?
We've all heard your tall tales.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,217 posts, read 4,111,845 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
We've all heard your tall tales.

the problem is that asked Great Day a few posts back to elaborate on his opting out. I did some of the research and found that the only way to legally opt out of SS is for religious purposes.. for example clergy can opt out..etc. Nowhere on the IRS website does it elude to any other legal form of opting out besides that. Those practicing the religion of Christian Science are on that list of those able to opt out.

The only way I see that he opted out was to be ordained a member of the clergy (which anyone can become a "minister" of one religion or another via the internet these days) or be a Christian Scientist. The reason this was done is for the same reason someone can't be barred from wearing a turban where headress may be restricted.. such as on passports etc. .. because of "religious" basis.... because the law was challenged in , I believe the supreme court, and as a result that is how people can opt out.

I then asked him to explain the religious principles that a religion oppposes Social Security contribution. I was seriously interested in learning why a religion would be against a system that looks out for fellow man and those less fortunate, as in my spritual practices NOT participating and opting out is just about the opposite. He instead deflected the question with citing that this is not a religious forum and asked the moderator about potentially striking my posts.

The IRS laws state that someone can't opt out of SS based on the simple fact that they don't agree with it for anything other than religious reasons. I did want him to explain the religious aspect of it because to me it is highly suspect. Basically, he found the loophole and squiggled his way through it so that he doesn't have to pay into something he doesn't believe should be in existence.. and not for religious reasons..which was the excuse he used to get out of SS. I have no proof of that and am not stating that is a fact, but that is the conclusion that I personally deduced from his lack of wanting to fully divulge the religious basis of his objection to SS.

One other poster said that he did post about how he opted out, although I looked and couldn't find that. But again.. I could find no other reason after extensive googling on the net beside the religion aspect that would allow someone to opt out of SS.

Again..GreatDay.. I'm not saying that what I am typing is the truth, because I don't know for sure..But.. you can bet that others will reach the same conclusions as I with your deflection on the issue and based on your stance against SS and any other form of taxes that do not directly benefit you (although they do indirectly).

Last edited by TristansMommy; 09-24-2008 at 10:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Grosse Ile Michigan
24,717 posts, read 59,579,994 times
Reputation: 26822
the biggest problem I have with the existing tax system is the elimination of deductions at higher income levels. This hurts charities, not high wage earners. they simply do not donate, or donate less to make up for the loss of the tax deduction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 8,765,860 times
Reputation: 1627
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Fine.

How many angels can dance on the head of pin? That is nearly as compelling a question.
The focus should be on the revenue collected. As in "revenue neutral."
The rate is moot, as it will be set annually to provide that "revenue neutral" sum.
This isn't hard to understand. The government seizes the wealth it wants, once it quantifies the desired amount.

"How many angels can dance on the head of pin? That is nearly as compelling a question.
The focus should be on the revenue collected. As in "revenue neutral."
The rate is moot, as it will be set annually to provide that "revenue neutral" sum.
This isn't hard to understand. The government seizes the wealth it wants, once it quantifies the desired amount."
The reduction in cost of collection and waste inherent in our envy-based system will offset the "dislocation" demagogue point.

Of course. The tax/seizure industry will lobby to maintain the stature they lose with a moral and efficient system in place. Unfortunately, legislators will still be "For Sale" to those who place their personal interests above that of the well-being of the country.

Again:
"How many angels can dance on the head of pin? That is nearly as compelling a question.
The focus should be on the revenue collected. As in "revenue neutral."
The rate is moot, as it will be set annually to provide that "revenue neutral" sum.
This isn't hard to understand. The government seizes the wealth it wants, once it quantifies the desired amount."

At last, You have pointed out one material, but tangential, weakness in the plan, that it allows for the continuation of Social Security.
But it was not the goal of the Fair Tax authors to use the Tax model to dismantle Social Security.
The task of reforming taxation with a Fair Tax is difficult enough, requiring defeat or recruitment of entrenched special interests who are deeply invested in envy-based taxation; who only view individuals uncompassionately as "groups;" that it was sensible to leave the issue of Social Security modification/elimination for another time.
The FairTax would, all by itself, take care of SS.
See:

The Underground Economy
Illegal Immigrants and Others Working Off the Books Cost the U.S. Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in Unpaid Taxes

And:
Committee on Ways and Means; Hearings
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 04:38 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldjensens View Post
the biggest problem I have with the existing tax system is the elimination of deductions at higher income levels. This hurts charities, not high wage earners. they simply do not donate, or donate less to make up for the loss of the tax deduction.
The recapture rate is an essentially trivial matter for upper income taxpayers, all of whom by now are subject to the AMT. Charitable deductions are one of the best things you can have in an AMT calculation. Works best when you can donate appreciated assets, as you not only avoid having to pay the capital gains tax on those assets, but you get to use the full appreciated value as a deduction against the taxes you owe on other income. On account of the AMT, upper income taxpayers actually have a larger incentive to make charitable contributions than do moderate income taxpayers...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 04:43 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian.Pearson View Post
The FairTax would, all by itself, take care of SS.
Yes, but it professes to be able to take care of a lot more than just SS. And as you and I have discussed before, the theory sounds good and you do a very good and fair job of presenting it, but where the rubber meets the road, the Fair Tax does a whole lot of skidding about and the whole kit and kaboodle ends up as pretty much a smoldering wreck lying in a ditch...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,070 posts, read 8,765,860 times
Reputation: 1627
As in not really growing the economy, not really floating all boats higher, not really being progressive, not really doing anything top economists like Jorgenson at Harvard, Kotlikoff at Boston Univ, and others claim? BTW -- even though Jorgenson has created his own tax plan, he has said a lot of good things about the FairTax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2008, 08:55 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000
As in being an incomplete pie-in-the-sky scheme dressed up in the great traditions of Creation Science to look like the real deal, but in actuality being so full of holes and inconsistencies as to be not at all acceptable as a plan that is ready for practical application. Have your people clean this idea up some, then we'll see if it can fly. As is, it's a non-starter...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top