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.
my mistake, ever since they split off Medicare and uncapped it I've used FICA and OASDI interchangeably as that is how non-tax professional employees in my company refer to it.
“There's no reason to believe that that the aggregate consequences of this tax policy are in our nation’s better interest. On the contrary within this issue there doesn’t seem to be any compelling public interest that would justify replacing administers and entrepreneurs determinations with a tax regulation favoring only LTCG, [i.e. long term capital gain] incomes.
Those who strive and reinvest into their enterprises certainly do not contribute less to our economy”.
... Let's see the charts of F and GM for the past year:
Ford is up about 1.98% while GM is up 40%.
If you know anything about "reversion to the mean" you'll know it is more likely that GM will decline while Ford improves than the other way around.
Regardless, periodic rebalancing of a portfolio is an important vehicle to maintain the optimal asset allocation in your portfolio, which in turn allows private sector savers and public sector pensions to provide for future retirement.
You are in favor of allowing people to save for retirement, aren't you?
SportyandMisty, the graph within the link you provided doesn't have a labeling methods I'm familiar with.
Am I correct to assume the “X” axis of the graph displays multiple durations of time in days, months and years?
The “Y” axis displays percentage portions of Ford or GM common share prices at some initial date. On that date Ford NYSE price opened or closed at $12.35 per share and GM's price was $45.20?
Is this depicting the percentage of an actual price or is it a “moving average”. It's the time durations that confuse me. What specifically are they?
We can continue discussing this when we're on common ground.
The wealthy already bear the major burden of taxes in this country. To continually expect them to take on more of the load is unjustifiable.
There actually seem to be a good number of justifications for it. You simply don't like any of them, which is a matter of little to no consequence at all.
If you know anything about "reversion to the mean" you'll know it is more likely that GM will decline while Ford improves than the other way around.
What I know about "reversion to the mean" is that the claim is often associated with the fact that actual data have not been moving as a poster had suggested or had wanted them to.
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) is the federal law that requires employers to withhold three separate taxes from the wages paid to employees...
-- a 6.2 percent Social Security tax
-- a 1.45 percent Medicare tax
-- a 0.9 percent Medicare surtax when the employee earns over $200,000.
The law also requires employers to pay the employer's portion of two of these taxes...
-- a 6.2 percent Social Security tax
-- a 1.45 percent Medicare tax
Actually this is what made the US more wealthy than places like Spain, Germany, France and Italy. Less market regulation led to greater prosperity. The only people advocating for more tax and unions are the people who have no chance or drive to earn more than average in their life.
Regulation and wealth redistribution are two very different things.
But the rest of your narrative doesn't fit reality either. The most prosperous period in the US (1932-1975) was when we had the highest union involvement and highest marginal tax rates. Since then we've lost a lot of ground vs most other industrial countries. For GDP (PPP) per capita we are 13th in the world according to the CIA, and we have much higher income disparity as well, meaning that the median is relatively worse off compared to other developed countries. For median wealth we are 27th last time I looked.
Investment in capital is the primary vehicle by which we drive our standard of living upward.
Indeed it is!
Why do you suppose our most prosperous period (lots of capital investment!) coincided with such high marginal income tax rates? And in spite of unions dragging down productivity too, I might add!
The wealthy already bear the major burden of taxes in this country. To continually expect them to take on more of the load is unjustifiable.
If they continue to be the only ones experiencing real income gains (true for the last 40 years), then they need to continually take on more of the tax load as well.
The other alternative is to do something about income, like I stated earlier.
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.
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.
