With the 2010 Alternative Minimum Tax looming ... might NOW not be a good time to become a homeowner?

[pvs]

Originally Posted by bradykp

pvs - i think you're right above but, anesthesia makes a good point. SS isn't supposed to be a welfare type program. everyone pays in, and gets out of it based on their earnings. so if we raise the cap, then those earning being taxed would be considered part of the earnings towards benefits.

Yes, I agree with this, but not what AnethesiaMD originally wrote, that there should be NO cap. I still think there would need to be one if the ceiling was raised/removed. It would, of course, be higher, but there should be a cap.

Originally Posted by bradykp

now, if people would be ok with it, not providing benefits to those that don't need it is alright with me, and i will hopefully likely be in that group at some point where mine and my wife's salaries are beyond the cap, and we did enough on our own to be ok with just the SS below the cap. but most people are not ok with this, and i understand.

Yeah, that's a tough one to sell. I myself, feel a certain entitlement to it, since I've paid into it for 34 years. It's hard to define who "doesn't need it", and there will always be arguments from whomever is targeted.

Originally Posted by bradykp

i'd like to see some people put their money where their mouth is. if you don't believe in SS system, then don't collect the benefits.

Again, this is a hard thing for people to accept ... especially if they've paid into the system for all their lives. This is always going to be the issue. And you can't make payments-in optional at this point, or else the folks who've paid in will never be able to collect. That's why I would propose raising or eliminating the cap.

Originally Posted by bradykp

Collecting because one is entitled to it is part of the problem, and as long as people do that, their arguments to eliminate the system or privatize it are fruitless.

I would never agree with elimination or privatization of the fund. It helps SO MANY people, and again, people have paid all their lives ... how can you eliminate it ... fairly, anyway? Privatization is just another way for it to be misappropriated and mismanaged, making some entity very rich in the process.

Originally Posted by bradykp

Like this past year, there were people who filed income tax returns of more than $10 million AND collected unemployment benefits in the same year. Now, they're entitled to the benefits because they paid in, but how does that even make sense?

I never heard about this. It DOESN'T make any sense. I HAVE heard of people who pay almost nothing in taxes, but yet get back over $5K in annual refunds. Never understood how THAT could happen, either.

Originally Posted by bradykp

as for the AMT not being indexed to inflation - i think it was just a mistake, a mistake that no one has the ball$ to fix, but i don't think they intentionally did it. it's possible though. lol

I don't see how the brainiacs in DC could make a blunder like that. They are supposed to be financial wizards! IMO, they knew what they were doing. But then again, I am always distrusting of our "leaders". Maybe I should lighten up ... might be better on my blood pressure

[AnesthesiaMD]

I was only speaking of what would be fair and just, not what would make SS a more viable system.

[bradykp]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

I was only speaking of what would be fair and just, not what would make SS a more viable system.

yeah. i agree. "fair" would be if you pay more in, you enjoy more benefits. but, i'm willing to pay more in when I'm in that position, and not take benefits I don't need. good points though!

[bradykp]

Originally Posted by pvs

I never heard about this. It DOESN'T make any sense. I HAVE heard of people who pay almost nothing in taxes, but yet get back over $5K in annual refunds. Never understood how THAT could happen, either.


I don't see how the brainiacs in DC could make a blunder like that. They are supposed to be financial wizards! IMO, they knew what they were doing. But then again, I am always distrusting of our "leaders". Maybe I should lighten up ... might be better on my blood pressure

some people with very low income get a credit, and thus, they end up getting money back that could equate to more than they paid in. but, you don't ever want to be one of those people, because you can hardly afford to eat ramen noodles every day.

as for brainiacs, i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. putting a bunch of lawyers in DC and expecting them to remember things like inflation, compounding, or other basic financial things, not even considering complex financial things, is a lot to expect! i consider myself pretty well versed on a lot of financial topics, and a lot of it is still mind boggling to me and i call on my friends in finance often. so i don't expect a group of lawyers to understand it at all! hahaha

[pvs]

Originally Posted by bradykp

some people with very low income get a credit, and thus, they end up getting money back that could equate to more than they paid in. but, you don't ever want to be one of those people, because you can hardly afford to eat ramen noodles every day.

Actually, no ... these folks are typically bartenders/maids or waiters/waitresses. They don't claim anything NEAR the amount they earn in tips, and they actually do very well for themselves, boasting of bringing home $2,400/week for working 3 days or nights.

They pay the bare minimum in taxes throughout the year, and then get a huge refund in February.

Originally Posted by bradykp

as for brainiacs, i can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. putting a bunch of lawyers in DC and expecting them to remember things like inflation, compounding, or other basic financial things, not even considering complex financial things, is a lot to expect! i consider myself pretty well versed on a lot of financial topics, and a lot of it is still mind boggling to me and i call on my friends in finance often. so i don't expect a group of lawyers to understand it at all! hahaha

Yeah, somewhat sarcastic, and pretty cynical. I would HOPE "the lawyers" would be in touch with financial experts, though, before hammering out the bills that these funds are based upon. IMO, if they are doing this without counsel, as you are suggesting, it would border on negligence, no?