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.
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.
You sound a bit more conservative than I do on this (except when talking about estate and gift taxes of course).
I have some concerns about a national sales tax, such as, would basic necessities of life like housing, food, and medicines be taxed? If so, then would ALL housing, food, and medical care not be taxed? Would you say that a $700 per month apartment rental should be taxed? Or should there only be a tax when you buy a $1,000,000 home? What about on a second home? Should basic foods like bread, fruits, and vegetables be taxed? Or should only lobster and caviar be taxed? What about services? What services should be taxed? See my point?
When it comes to state/local sales taxes, most food (except prepared food/food at restaurants) is not taxed - at least not in most states, housing is not taxed, and medicine is not taxed - at least not in most states. But since we're talking about a need to raise so much more revenue, I think you'd have to tax at least some of this if we were going to have a national sales tax. I'm aware of the "Fair Tax" plan calling for services to be taxed and calling for a prebate, but I'm not sure exactly how it would work out (and I don't remember off the top of my head whether medicine/medical care would be taxed under that plan or not). The other concern I have is that different industries/corporations would lobby to have their products/services exempted from the tax and that the tax would ultimately be anything but "fair."
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 06-24-2012 at 06:54 PM..
Reakky doesn;t matter who egts eecleted.the congress is likely going to set on the Simpson/Boyles commisio recomedatio after the elction
Your right - it doesn't matter who the next Pres is - from THOSE TWO choices.
But, STILL, Ryan would be a terrible VP choice for Romney.
Hell, even Catholics don't like Ryan.
for heavens sake, where do you get the idea anyone wants to repealing medicare, there is a difference between revamp and repealing....? the days of give aways has to end. I don't know about your grandparents or even your parents, but I would bet they didn't expect to try and live their senior years off the government. I know my family didn't and my husband I are not. I do know if we could have put some of our SS money into private investments our monthly check would have been a heck of a lot larger.
My grandmother, who is well into her 80's now, actually has tried to live off of SS - just because she had virtually no other option. She never really saved. She (and my grandfather, but he died before even turning 65) made a fairly low income while working. My mom has helped her out quite a bit, though.
That being said, I think there was less of a sense of urgency to save for retirement until a few decades ago. Could my grandparents (and others in similar situations) have made more of an effort to save? Yes.
My parents are certainly not planning to live off the government. My dad is in the top 2% and my mom is in the top 3% or so (they are divorced; they would probably be barely in the top 1% if they were still together). My dad is already eligible for SS but isn't taking it yet, as I mentioned earlier. He likely will, but certainly won't need it. My mom is not eligible yet, but also won't need it. Obviously people not as well off as my parents do need to have something available, but most people their age - even who are not nearly as well off - do have savings and have been planning for retirement.
I would be more than willing to sign something waiving my right to ever receive SS benefits on future income and be willing to pay even 3% in taxes, as opposed to the 12%+ currently for SS, as long as I could put the rest in my 401K or in another type of retirement account. I wouldn't be willing to sign away my right to all the benefits that will eventually be owed based on what I've already paid in, but I would be willing to sign away my right to a portion of them.
If people like my grandparents had been able to take advantage of such a system, then they would have had/my grandmother would have their own savings - that easily could have been more than what SS has provided/is providing.
This is of course a complicated issue and, while I don't like the current system and think it is quite flawed, how to fix it is complicated as well. Some sort of privatization is ultimately what I favor, but there are obviously many potential problems associated with it.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 06-24-2012 at 07:29 PM..
The Ryan plan only calls for changes to SS and Medicare for those currently born in 1955 or later (so the oldest people affected would currently be 57). Romney has a separate plan calling for changes for those who are currently younger than 55. So no seniors who are currently on Social Security or Medicare would be affected at all.
As far as people younger than their mid-50's, changes have to be made at some point. Obama wants to make no changes. The problem is...if no changes are made...both will go bankrupt and there will likely have to be abrupt cuts at some point even for seniors on them at the time.
Kick all elderly into the street, brilliant plan as proposed by Ryan. This will be a tough sell in Florida. Yes Romney wants this. He pays cash at the Mayo Clinic when his family needs medical care. The rest of the elderly can just suck it up if they need chemotherapy or any medical care.
I love posters on the far right who all have parents in the top 1%. lol
And those over 60 who dont care what happens. They will care (Tea Party/medicare people) when they are taken to court for that $ 20,000.00 half day in the ER medical bill that they cannot pay.
Kick all elderly into the street, brilliant plan as proposed by Ryan. This will be a tough sell in Florida. Yes Romney wants this.
No, neither Romney nor Ryan want to "kick all elderly into the street." Neither has proposed any plan that would change anything for current seniors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey
He pays cash at the Mayo Clinic when his family needs medical care.
Not that it matters, but do you have a source?
Let's just say you're right - if you had enough money, wouldn't you get your family the best medical care you could? And, FYI, it's not like only the uber-rich can go to the Mayo Clinic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey
The rest of the elderly can just suck it up if they need chemotherapy or any medical care.
No one has said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey
Ryan is proposing to redistribute yet more money to the country’s rich at the expense of everyone else.
I love posters on the far right who all have parents in the top 1%. lol
I can only presume you're referring to me. My parents are not in the top 1%, which I stated clearly. I said, if they were still together, they likely would be - barely. But being barely in the top 1% is nothing like being in the top 0.01%. My dad is still working, but on Medicare, as I said earlier. No, he won't need Social Security (but he is certainly entitled to it and likely will take it when he stops working), but he does need Medicare - even though he is relatively well off. My mom will eventually need Medicare as well (she is not old enough yet). Furthermore, I said my grandmother is relying on Social Security (as well as Medicare).
So don't suggest that I only care about elderly people who don't need Medicare because my parents don't/won't need it, because my dad does and my mom will, not to mention that I still have a grandmother alive who was never even in the top 50%, much less even close to the top 1%, who absolutely does need it.
My parents worked for everything they have. They may be well off, but they are not uber-rich, and they deserve everything they have. My dad is a Vietnam vet. He has permanent injuries from it. He put himself through college and grad school, supporting a wife and young child when he was in grad school. He put three kids through college. My mom started working at 13 and put herself through college and grad school.
Also, I think most people who participate on this forum would call me center right, not far right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamofmonterey
And those over 60 who dont care what happens. They will care (Tea Party/medicare people) when they are taken to court for that $ 20,000.00 half day in the ER medical bill that they cannot pay.
No one is advocating seniors having to pay $20,000 out of pocket for any medical expense.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 06-24-2012 at 08:44 PM..
Yeah, the typical retiree doesn't live off the government...
Which is why people shouldn't be forced to pay such large amounts into Social Security....
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.
Yeah, the typical retiree doesn't live off the government...
