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.
How's this, remove the cap from the wage tax so they can pay in at the same rate as the rest of us. Then they can be entitled
Now, that it the most fair solution that I have heard.
Right now there are a group of people who are paying less, proportionate to their wages, than the rest of us. Everyone should be paying his fair share.
Now, that it the most fair solution that I have heard.
Everyone should be paying his fair share.
its not a "fair" solution and the people with higher earnings would end up paying more than their "fair" share if you took away the cap. they already pay more than their fair share.
Now, that it the most fair solution that I have heard.
Right now there are a group of people who are paying less, proportionate to their wages, than the rest of us. Everyone should be paying his fair share.
Are you even aware that there is a cap on the taxes because there is a corresponding cap on the benefits? So where do you come up with this "fair share" baloney? Already, the higher wage earners receive a smaller percentage of their taxes back in benefits than the lower wage earners; thus, the higher earners are subsidizing the lower earners. If you wish to increase this subsidy even further by removing the FICA tax cap without also removing the benefit cap, then you should say so and that would be an honest argument. But this business about "fair share" is really dishonest because it gives a totally erroneous impression.
its not a "fair" solution and the people with higher earnings would end up paying more than their "fair" share if you took away the cap. they already pay more than their fair share.
My payment just to the federal witholding is 11%. My retirement bonus recent got me a hefty 27% withholding. I think that if the high rollers would pay what I pay then that would be fair.
Buffet's company that he owns made 2.5 billion last year. If he'd like to pay his fair share then his corporation, which Mitt Romney says is a person, should pay at least what I pay, which would be $250,000,000. people who make $250,000 a year should be prepared to pay at least $30K in federal with holding.
im sure he pays a lot more than what you pay. but why do you want to give the government yours or his money? the tax rates should be lower for both you and warren.
Are you even aware that there is a cap on the taxes because there is a corresponding cap on the benefits? So where do you come up with this "fair share" baloney? Already, the higher wage earners receive a smaller percentage of their taxes back in benefits than the lower wage earners; thus, the higher earners are subsidizing the lower earners. If you wish to increase this subsidy even further by removing the FICA tax cap without also removing the benefit cap, then you should say so and that would be an honest argument. But this business about "fair share" is really dishonest because it gives a totally erroneous impression.
im sure he pays a lot more than what you pay. but why do you want to give the government yours or his money? the tax rates should be lower for both you and warren.
Actually he does not. He pays himself a salary of $100K, and of that he pays no income taxes at all. He said so himself. He said that there are people in his office who work under him who pay more than him. But you can bet his corporation does not pay what I pay.
I don't want to the give the feds my money, they take it from me. I really don't have a lot of choice here.
The tax rates should not necessarily be lower for me and warren. They should be the same for me and warren and his corporation.
Actually he does not. He pays himself a salary of $100K, and of that he pays no income taxes at all. He said so himself. He said that there are people in his office who work under him who pay more than him. But you can bet his corporation does not pay what I pay.
I don't want to the give the feds my money, they take it from me. I really don't have a lot of choice here.
The tax rates should not necessarily be lower for me and warren. They should be the same for me and warren and his corporation.
well, i dont believe corporations should pay any income taxes. but as far as warren is concerned, id guess his tax rate is lowered by his investments being taxed at the capital gains rate and he probably has investments in tax free government bonds. i dont see why capital gains should be less than income, so i agree there. i dont think government bonds should be tax exempt, but thats an incentive so government can raise money so i doubt they want to end that.
Now, that it the most fair solution that I have heard.
Right now there are a group of people who are paying less, proportionate to their wages, than the rest of us. Everyone should be paying his fair share.
But that is goig to do nothign to save the system really. that will only mean governamnt owing them more in SS payents.But as we have seen durig the bommersw lifetime when contribtuions where raise;governamnt can easily spendit.In fact some boomers who wehre a large gropu wil not get what they are rpomise basically un less what breaux commissio shoowed needs to be done.Anyone who wants to see what is coming should loo at the truatee's reprot.Its clearly shown there.
If people absolutely are determined that there be no tax increase of any kind than I would tend to agree. I would suggest, as you a 5% decrease in social security benefits. Perhaps, Medicare could require more in the way of payment of a deductible for care as well? This would reduce outlays and possibly demand for costly medical services.
I'm sure people will object to this too. However, will they provide an alternative means of saving the programs?
I recently read an analysis from one of the universities about what would be needed to ensure long term Social Security benefits. I might be just a little bit off here, but as I recall their recommended "blended" approach was something like the following:
- Reduce the annual cost of living increase to 1/4% below full COLA
- Increase the tax paid by employers and employees 1/4% each, phased in over a 5 year period
- Raise the retirement age to 68 over the next few years
- Increase the cap amount that you collect Social Security taxes on to $140,000, phased in over the next 5 years
As far as Medicare goes, I suspect some combination of co-pays and deductibles would go a long way towards ensuring long program health.
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.
Let's be honest in our argumentation.
