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.
See post #17 it is effectively a repeal. Republicans just call it a revamp or changes because that sounds nicer.
None of my grandparents did, they were/are all fairly wealthy, but SS and Medicare have benefited seniors generally on that there is no question. As to the investment thing. You may have gotten a bigger check you may have gotten nothing. It would have depended on the market and your investment strategy. If you had to pull out of the market in 2009 you would probably have been screwed.
not really plus remember, which too many seem to always forget: it isn't up to the PRes and certainly not the VP to change the laws. It takes the support of both houses.
As for private investments; let;s just say this, I know what I put into my 401K and what it has returned. Over a long run of say, 20 to 50 years of investing the returns always pay, well 90% of the time and no one is talking about investing thier entire SS withholdings, just a very small part and it should be a choice not a requirement. There will always be those who think the government should take care of them and there will always be those who would like to have opportunity to make their own decisions in life. This goes for long term care and medi care. It is called buy long term care insurance and do it while you are still young or middle aged. Many have done just that.
You are showing how little you know about 'entitlements'.
Let me help: Medicare is NOT free. The premiums are deducted from social security checks.
You have been extremely misinformed if you think RETIREMENT social security and Medicare are entitlements.
As far as true entitlements such as Disability and Medicaid, I, too, hope they stop. Bam! Done!
Whoohooo! That's hilarious! People pay $37 or $87 or $117 monthly for medicare benefits worth hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetimes, and you don't think it is a freebie?? Medicare is the biggest, most dangerous entitlement of all--seven times more expensive than Social Security.
not really plus remember, which too many seem to always forget: it isn't up to the PRes and certainly not the VP to change the laws. It takes the support of both houses.
As for private investments; let;s just say this, I know what I put into my 401K and what it has returned. Over a long run of say, 20 to 50 years of investing the returns always pay, well 90% of the time and no one is talking about investing thier entire SS withholdings, just a very small part and it should be a choice not a requirement. There will always be those who think the government should take care of them and there will always be those who would like to have opportunity to make their own decisions in life. This goes for long term care and medi care. It is called buy long term care insurance and do it while you are still young or middle aged. Many have done just that.
generally speaking private investments grow overtime, but it is not a consistent growth. If you get stuck at the wrong time or holding the wrong stuff you are SOL. SS is all invested in T-bonds which grow slowly but are safe. The point of SS is to stop people from dying in the cold not to be something you gamble with.
As to changing the laws the pres. almost certainly gets a say in the form of a veto.
Oh, I don't know..........family? Church? Charity?
You know.........the way they used to do it before the government stuck its damned nose into everything.
Anything but money from hard working taxpayers.
Yes, because how many families, churches and charities do you know can shell out 80k per year per person for long term care. The way they used to do it before the government was to basically let people die, and or live in their own filth occasionally you will still see stories of people who have dementia, and no relatives being discovered living in awful conditions. People don't just decide gee I want to live in a nursing home. They tend to go because home care is no longer adequate and they need the specialists and facilities.
In terms of rates the uber-wealthy make out like bandits. Mitt Romney pays a lower effective federal tax rate on his income then the vast majority of people who have jobs. Were it not for the earned income tax credit he would pay a lower effective rate then a McDonalds worker who has to shell out 15.3% in FICA. That is again why the buffet rule is key. If you are working an earning 1,000,000 + a year you are already paying the requisite rate and then some. It is only if you are racking up millions of realized capital gains and dividends that you will have to pay it.
The Buffet rule would result in capital gains being taxed at a much higher rate, which you just said you are against. Obviously it would result in dividends being taxed higher, but it would also result in a major increase in capital gains taxes. You can go on and on all you want about Romney's effective tax rate on his income, but most of his income isn't income, but instead capital gains. Yes, he does benefit from the carried interest loophole, and I believe that should be closed. That doesn't mean I'm not going to support/vote for Romney. (I'm sure you probably voted for Kerry, who I believe paid an even lower tax rate according to the returns he released when running for president.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
The people who get nailed are the people who are reasonably wealthy, but not extremely so and the upper middle class. What is funny is that so few people actually understand taxes that both the left and the right want to perpetually stick this group of income earners with the bill.
Yes. Even when speaking about the top 1% - the lower end of the top 1% is COMPLETELY different than the top end of the top 1% (I think any income above about ~$350,000 or so is top 1%). The lower end basically lives life like everyone else with some extra perks. The upper end lives in a completely different world. Yet everyone picks on the lower end just as much and they are usually the ones who get stuck with everything. Keep in mind this also includes a lot of small business owners, which is very problematic.
What is even worse is that the people with the best accountants, tax attorneys, etc. fare far better than anyone else under the current system.
I favor extensive tax reform. Basically, my idea would be a flat tax on all income, capital gains, dividends, etc. of probably around 20% replacing all the current taxes including FICA taxes. There would be virtually no loopholes or deductions and corporate and personal income would be taxed equally, so the problems associated with "double taxation" would be ended and it would be less complex for businesses/business owners, partnerships/partners in the partnerships, etc. That figure seems a little low, but when you factor in all the loopholes, deductions, etc., eliminating the earned income tax credit, and extra taxes from capital gains and the like - I think it would likely actually result in more revenue. Most lower income people would be paying slightly more, but since 47% do not currently pay any income taxes (yes, they pay FICA taxes), I think this is fair. Middle income and upper middle/lower end of upper income people would pay less, while many upper end of upper income people would pay more.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 06-24-2012 at 04:53 PM..
I hope they pick him... 'cuz then you'll start seeing the "senior vote" abandoning Romney in droves (including 76 year old Ron Paul, who doesn't wanna lose his Social Security... LOL)!
As has already been stated, Ryan's plan does NOT include any changes for current seniors.
I hope that if this tragedy happens that on day one all entitlements stop. The stupid head up their aZZ deserve it. Plus my check will actually go up. I will be free to finally enjoy life as all Dems should. Just let go. If the poor are that happy let them feel it.
So, you're saying that Democrats/people who will vote for Obama are wealthy and Republicans/people who will vote for Romney are poor, right? Well...this is funny given how much we hear from the left about how Romney is the candidate of the rich and Obama is the candidate of the "99%."
It's funny - the left is always eager to discredit conservatives so they constantly call them either dirt poor, implying stupid and uneducated, or rich, implying greedy and uncaring. Hell - I have been told both that I have a butler and that I'm "poor white trash" and live in a trailer park on this forum, when neither is the case.
FYI - it would benefit me quite a bit if all the entitlements were cut, but that is certainly not Romney's plan nor Ryan's plan.
It looks as if Romney leads Obama slightly among middle and upper income voters, while Obama leads Romney among lower income voters. Now, this is mainly because lower income voters are more likely to be minorities, but when you look at income levels within "white voters" and "nonwhite voters", Romney has slightly less of a lead among poor whites than middle/upper income whites (with more of a lead among middle income whites than upper income whites) and Obama has much less of a lead among poor minority voters than middle/upper income minority voters.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 06-24-2012 at 04:51 PM..
Watch out for your social security and Medicare if this happens and Romney actually gets elected.
Reakky doesn;t matter who egts eecleted.the congress is likely going to set on the Simpson/Boyles commisio recomedatio after the elction ;n matter who is president. That president will sign them. Tax reform and SS reform is comig no matter what also.That is really the reaso they agreed to the cliff becaue meither can take the temrs.
The Buffet rule would result in capital gains being taxed at a much higher rate, which you just said you are against. Obviously it would result in dividends being taxed higher, but it would also result in a major increase in capital gains taxes. You can go on and on all you want about Romney's effective tax rate on his income, but most of his income isn't income, but instead capital gains. Yes, he does benefit from the carried interest loophole, and I believe that should be closed. That doesn't mean I'm not going to support/vote for Romney. (I'm sure you probably voted for Kerry, who I believe paid an even lower tax rate according to the returns he released when running for president.)
I said it depends. I think the issue with capital gains is a tricky one. I think to an extent capital gains needs preferential treatment to help seniors and other people living on fixed income, but at a certain point e.g. 1,000,000 in realization in a year, that is just absurd. That is why I like the Buffet rule. As to Kerry I think he should pay higher taxes as well.
Yes. Even when speaking about the top 1% - the lower end of the top 1% is COMPLETELY different than the top end of the top 1% (I think any income above about ~$350,000 or so is top 1%). The lower end basically lives life like everyone else with some extra perks. The upper end lives in a completely different world. Yet everyone picks on the lower end just as much and they are usually the ones who get stuck with everything. Keep in mind this also includes a lot of small business owners, which is very problematic.
What is even worse is that the people with the best accountants, tax attorneys, etc. fare far better than anyone else under the current system.
The lower end has earned income and the higher end has almost exclusive capital gains. That is where the difference is and again why I think you need the buffet rule. Again I think you need to be careful to protect seniors and other people on fixed income, but there is a point where it becomes an absurd form of tax favoritism for certain individuals. I like the low rates generally, but you need a cut off to stop favoring these extremely wealthy people over everyone else in the country that is subject to ordinary rates. What I also find funny is the people who want to repeal the estate tax. The only people who pay the estate tax are the very wealthy and if you repealed it and went back to the 2011 rules it would essentially amount to a tax increase on other wealthy, but not as wealthy, people who have a lot of low basis property. BTW I am studying (in part) to be one of those tax attorneys you speak of and that is where a lot of my dislike for the tax structure comes from.
I favor extensive tax reform. Basically, my idea would be a flat tax on all income, capital gains, dividends, etc. of probably around 20% replacing all the current taxes including FICA taxes. There would be virtually no loopholes and corporate and personal income would be taxed equally, so the problems associated with "double taxation" would be ended and it would be less complex for businesses/business owners, partnerships/partners in the partnerships, etc. That figure seems a little low, but when you factor in all the loopholes, deductions, etc., eliminating the earned income tax credit, and extra taxes from capital gains and the like - I think it would likely actually result in more revenue.
Ideally in the perfect world, I think the who system is garbage. I would want a national sales tax, coupled with a national estate and gift tax all at the same rate with limited per person, or per donee exclusions, basically any time you transfer money that isn't payroll is when the tax/credits should kick in. I think the income tax lends itself to abuse, but that is just me.
My responses in red
Last edited by Randomstudent; 06-24-2012 at 05:10 PM..
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.
. The way they used to do it before the government was to basically let people die, and or live in their own filth occasionally you will still see stories of people who have dementia, and no relatives being discovered living in awful conditions. People don't just decide gee I want to live in a nursing home. They tend to go because home care is no longer adequate and they need the specialists and facilities.
