How High Are Your Taxes?

[Latrinsorm]

We discussed this briefly in another thread, but I thought that as long as I had the data I may as well look at all income ranges: are taxes today higher or lower than in previous years, and for whom? I will use the sample of 1955-present for reasons I assume are obvious and go by $5,000 blocks of today's dollars. Here are the results for lowest taxes, married filing jointly:

1977: $0 - $30,000
1986: $35,000 - $50,000
2009: $55,000 - $320,000
1988: $330,000+

Taxes have gone up since 2009 in the sense that the brackets apply earlier on real dollars. For illustration, on 150,000 real dollars you would pay 19.6% in 2009 compared to 19.8% in 2013, or a difference of $280. We see similar bands for every other filing situation:

Married filing singly
1977: $0 - $15,000
1986: $20,000 - $25,000
2009: $30,000 - $160,000
1988: $165,000+

Single
1977: $0 - $20,000
1986: $25,000 - $35,000
2009: $40,000 - $225,000
1988: $230,000+

Head of household
1977: $0 - $15,000
1986: $20,000 - $35,000
2009: $40,000 - $265,000
1988: $270,000+

Thus, for a broad spectrum of middle and upper-middle class Americans, taxes haven't been lower since before World War II.

[Gelston]

Stop trying to call out Wrathbringer.

[Wrathbringer]

Taxation is theft.

[Gelston]

Taxation is theft.

No, it is US Citizen Club dues.

[everan]

We discussed this briefly in another thread, but I thought that as long as I had the data I may as well look at all income ranges: are taxes today higher or lower than in previous years, and for whom? I will use the sample of 1955-present for reasons I assume are obvious and go by $5,000 blocks of today's dollars. Here are the results for lowest taxes, married filing jointly:

1977: $0 - $30,000
1986: $35,000 - $50,000
2009: $55,000 - $320,000
1988: $330,000+

Taxes have gone up since 2009 in the sense that the brackets apply earlier on real dollars. For illustration, on 150,000 real dollars you would pay 19.6% in 2009 compared to 19.8% in 2013, or a difference of $280. We see similar bands for every other filing situation:

Married filing singly
1977: $0 - $15,000
1986: $20,000 - $25,000
2009: $30,000 - $160,000
1988: $165,000+

Single
1977: $0 - $20,000
1986: $25,000 - $35,000
2009: $40,000 - $225,000
1988: $230,000+

Head of household
1977: $0 - $15,000
1986: $20,000 - $35,000
2009: $40,000 - $265,000
1988: $270,000+

Thus, for a broad spectrum of middle and upper-middle class Americans, taxes haven't been lower since before World War II.

I'm sorry, I'm not always quick witted, but what is the point here? I don't get what you are trying to say. In any event, my opinion is that tax rates should never go up, tax revenue will rise based on inflation, all other things being equal.

[Gelston]

I'm sorry, I'm not always quick witted, but what is the point here? I don't get what you are trying to say. In any event, my opinion is that tax rates should never go up, tax revenue will raise based on inflation, all other things being equal.

75% of the time Latrin has no point 99% of the time.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sorry, I'm not always quick witted, but what is the point here?

https://media.giphy.com/media/U9CFWw4zEzlDO/giphy.gif

[Jarvan]

I'm sorry, I'm not always quick witted, but what is the point here? I don't get what you are trying to say. In any event, my opinion is that tax rates should never go up, tax revenue will rise based on inflation, all other things being equal.

But then how are we going to pay for Free College, Free Medical, Free Food, Free Housing, Free Illegal's Benefits... I mean Future Dem Voters.

[everan]

https://media.giphy.com/media/U9CFWw4zEzlDO/giphy.gif
Wait, you aren't labeling me a troll, are you?

[Warriorbird]

Wait, you aren't labeling me a troll, are you?

Latrin is trolling Republicans on purpose is what Parkbandit is trying to tell you.

Even from a liberal... our economy was indeed a lot better with the older rates... but our economy was also a lot different. We have not really been a manufacturing based economy for a long time.

[Silvean]

That's a cool octopus.

[Warriorbird]

That's a cool octopus.

Introduced to me by a student as an exam answer as to why he didn't like either political party. I dig it.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm sorry, I'm not always quick witted, but what is the point here? I don't get what you are trying to say. In any event, my opinion is that tax rates should never go up, tax revenue will rise based on inflation, all other things being equal.The point is determining how high our taxes are relative to previous years.

The initial impetus was someone whose name escapes me at the moment pointing out the incongruity of our taxes never being higher while the deficit exists, and I noted that for people making $200,000 the reverse was actually true, but then I decided to look into it more because $200,000 could be an outlier. As it turns out it wasn't, so phew! High fives all around.

[Tgo01]

The point is determining how high our taxes are relative to previous years.

The initial impetus was someone whose name escapes me at the moment pointing out the incongruity of our taxes never being higher while the deficit exists, and I noted that for people making $200,000 the reverse was actually true, but then I decided to look into it more because $200,000 could be an outlier. As it turns out it wasn't, so phew! High fives all around.

How do you masturbate with both hands on the keyboard like that?

[Latrinsorm]

How do you masturbate with both hands on the keyboard like that?I listen to a lot of Sting.

[Warriorbird]

I listen to a lot of Sting.

Gordon Sumner has much to answer for.

[everan]

The point is determining how high our taxes are relative to previous years.

The initial impetus was someone whose name escapes me at the moment pointing out the incongruity of our taxes never being higher while the deficit exists, and I noted that for people making $200,000 the reverse was actually true, but then I decided to look into it more because $200,000 could be an outlier. As it turns out it wasn't, so phew! High fives all around.

But that doesn't indicate how high are taxes are compared to previous years, it just states the years when a particular bracket had a better year, at least that's what it looks like to me.

You could have just said the other 3 categories had the same result as married filing joint, it would have made the whole thing less confusing.

Lastly, ok, so now what is the point again?

A more interesting correlation may be to go back to your year when taxes were lower, shoot out 2 years and see what the deficit was relative to now. Reaganonics would project it to be lower, demo-communism would project it to be higher. But I wouldn't use the brackets you use, they're way too broad, just look at say 50-150k.

I take that back, I don't know if that would be a more interesting correlation because I don't know what you are trying to show by those statistics.

[Atlanteax]

"Too damn high" is the only appropriate answer to be given.

[Latrinsorm]

But that doesn't indicate how high are taxes are compared to previous years, it just states the years when a particular bracket had a better year, at least that's what it looks like to me.To clarify, then: the years listed are the absolute lowest for taxes, when that range of incomes had the absolute best year. In every other year, people with that (real) income paid higher taxes.
A more interesting correlation may be to go back to your year when taxes were lower, shoot out 2 years and see what the deficit was relative to now. Reaganonics would project it to be lower, demo-communism would project it to be higher. But I wouldn't use the brackets you use, they're way too broad, just look at say 50-150k.I use the brackets I use because they are the regions where taxes are the lowest, and those regions turn out to be continuous. It so happens that an income of $50,000 had its lowest taxes in 1986, an income of $55,000 had its lowest taxes in 2009, an income of $60,000 had its lowest taxes in 2009, and so on. The region of 50k-150k happens to be one where 2009 was the best year for everyone except for exactly 50k married filing jointly.
I take that back, I don't know if that would be a more interesting correlation because I don't know what you are trying to show by those statistics.I'm not trying to correlate anything. I just wondered when taxes were low for people, because people say a lot of things like "'Too damn high' is the only appropriate answer to be given." and I wondered if historical context might illuminate.

[time4fun]

"Too damn high" is the only appropriate answer to be given.

Our combined household income puts us in the top 1% of the country, and both me and my boyfriend disagree with this statement vehemently. Taxes are crucial for the well being of this country and those in it. People like us pay too little, and we both vote for politicians who would increase our taxes- because we'd rather see free college tuition, universal health care, and the eradication of hunger in this country than us getting one more vacation every year.

This country was at its best when our tax rates were higher on top income earners. People who treat taxes like they're some immoral burden are short-sighted fools who value money over the things that really matter. We pay more in taxes than most of the folks on this forum take home in income every year, and you won't ever catch us complaining about the high tax rates. So unless you're in the lower 50% of income earners in this country, you shouldn't be complaining either.

[everan]

Our combined household income puts us in the top 1% of the country, and both me and my boyfriend disagree with this statement vehemently. Taxes are crucial for the well being of this country and those in it. People like us pay too little, and we both vote for politicians who would increase our taxes- because we'd rather see free college tuition, universal health care, and the eradication of hunger in this country than us getting one more vacation every year.

This country was at its best when our tax rates were higher on top income earners. People who treat taxes like they're some immoral burden are short-sighted fools who value money over the things that really matter. We pay more in taxes than most of the folks on this forum take home in income every year, and you won't ever catch us complaining about the high tax rates. So unless you're in the lower 50% of income earners in this country, you shouldn't be complaining either.

I have to agree with this sentiment. Although I'm not a 1%er, I've never complained about paying taxes, it means I'm making money. I make enough to have enough to have paid real money for this game all these years :) even when I was paying by the hour back on Prodigy. I'm happy to do my fair share. I disagree on free college and I'm certainly not happy about how my medical insurance was gutted to provide insurance for those that previously didn't have it. I'm not saying that there aren't some nice outcomes to the plan, I just wish they would have found a way to provide it without changing mine. I used to like the idea of a 15% cap on long term capital gains until I realized that it only impacts average Americans occasionally. It's all those darn 2 & 20 carry interest goons that Bernie wants to tax that get all the benefit. They could certainly do their fair share.

[Tgo01]

Our combined household income puts us in the top 1% of the country, and both me and my boyfriend disagree with this statement vehemently. Taxes are crucial for the well being of this country and those in it. People like us pay too little, and we both vote for politicians who would increase our taxes- because we'd rather see free college tuition, universal health care, and the eradication of hunger in this country than us getting one more vacation every year.

Nothing is stopping you from giving your money to the federal government. Lead by example.


This country was at its best when our tax rates were higher on top income earners.

By what measure exactly?


We pay more in taxes than most of the folks on this forum take home in income every year, and you won't ever catch us complaining about the high tax rates.

Yeah, apparently we will just see you complaining you aren't paying enough in taxes when there is nothing stopping you from paying more in taxes.


So unless you're in the lower 50% of income earners in this country, you shouldn't be complaining either.

There's a Democrat for ya, pretending to know you and your life situation so well that they can tell you what you can and cannot complain about.

It's been a fun ride Democrats, but it's time to face the fact that allowing the Democrat party to continue to exist is a luxury we can no longer afford.

[time4fun]

Nothing is stopping you from giving your money to the federal government. Lead by example.



By what measure exactly?



Yeah, apparently we will just see you complaining you aren't paying enough in taxes when there is nothing stopping you from paying more in taxes.



There's a Democrat for ya, pretending to know you and your life situation so well that they can tell you what you can and cannot complain about.

It's been a fun ride Democrats, but it's time to face the fact that allowing the Democrat party to continue to exist is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Pretty much the stupidest possible response to "We need national policies that increase the taxes on everyone above a certain income level"- "You personally should volunteer more taxes".

No. I personally should vote for politicians who will raise taxes on everyone at the top brackets. Because that actually makes a difference.

And while I can get into a rage over the whole "my insurance was gutted so other people didn't have to die", I will totally agree on capital gains being a massive culprit here. 15% taxation on non-labor activities is insane. We're not a manufacturing economy any longer. We can't pretend like capital gains are somehow an exception to the rule. Investments should be taxed at the same rate as labor, and investments abroad should be taxed even higher. Which also means the IRS needs to triple its staff- but only for audits on corporate taxes. I'm tired of everyone going after mythical "welfare queens" while corporate entities get to operate above the law.

[Tgo01]

Pretty much the stupidest possible response to "We need national policies that increase the taxes on everyone above a certain income level"- "You personally should volunteer more taxes".

True, but I would argue it's not as stupid of an argument that the rich should "pay their fair share" so you still got me beat there.


No. I personally should vote for politicians who will raise taxes on everyone at the top brackets. Because that actually makes a difference.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.


Investments should be taxed at the same rate as labor

So middle class people relying on their stock investments in their retirement should be taxed at higher rates for selling stock?


Which also means the IRS needs to triple its staff- but only for audits on corporate taxes.

Corporate taxes are something like 8% of the total federal government's revenue, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by tripling the audits for such a relatively small slice of the pie?

[time4fun]

True, but I would argue it's not as stupid of an argument that the rich should "pay their fair share" so you still got me beat there.



The two aren't mutually exclusive.



So middle class people relying on their stock investments in their retirement should be taxed at higher rates for selling stock?



Corporate taxes are something like 8% of the total federal government's revenue, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by tripling the audits for such a relatively small slice of the pie?

If you think "the rich should pay their fair share" is a stupid argument- you have absolutely no business in expressing any opinion on tax policy. Nor should you ever engage in any kind of logical argument, since you're failing on both fronts right now. Though hey- points for consistency.

[Tgo01]

If you think "the rich should pay their fair share" is a stupid argument- you have absolutely no business in expressing any opinion on tax policy. Nor should you ever engage in any kind of logical argument, since you're failing on both fronts right now. Though hey- points for consistency.

It's not that I don't think they should "pay their fair share", it's that the top 20% already pays something like 86% of all federal income taxes, how much more of the pie do they have to pay before it's "fair"?

[time4fun]

It's not that I don't think they should "pay their fair share", it's that the top 20% already pays something like 86% of all federal income taxes, how much more of the pie do they have to pay before it's "fair"?

So back to logical arguments- that would be what we call a scope shift. We were talking about how much individual people at the top income levels pay, and you shifted over to the proportion the top income earners as a group pay vs everyone else. All you're doing here is citing the gross income inequality in this country and then using it to advocate for a conclusion that we should, inexplicably, refrain from measures that help solve for the problem of income inequality.

Some call it illogical. I prefer "stupid".

[Tgo01]

So back to logical arguments- that would be what we call a scope shift. We were talking about how much individual people at the top income levels pay, and you shifted over to the proportion the top income earners as a group pay vs everyone else.

Okay, let's have it your way. Top earners already pay 40% in taxes while the lowest bracket is 10%. How much more do the rich need to pay in taxes before it's "fair"?


All you're doing here is citing the gross income inequality in this country and then using it to advocate for a conclusion that we should, inexplicably, refrain from measures that help solve for the problem of income inequality.

How much more money does the rich need to give the government in tax dollars before income inequality is achieved?

[everan]

And while I can get into a rage over the whole "my insurance was gutted so other people didn't have to die"
That's incredibly dramatic. Hospitals didn't turn away dying patients because they didn't have insurance. I just don't think that the way to fix a problem that 20% (purported) of the population has is best done by changing the 80% that is working. Heck, they could have just put them on Medicare and it would have been less expensive than the massive amount of change created by upending the insurance industry.

[time4fun]

That's incredibly dramatic. Hospitals didn't turn away dying patients because they didn't have insurance. I just don't think that the way to fix a problem that 20% (purported) of the population has is best done by changing the 80% that is working. Heck, they could have just put them on Medicare and it would have been less expensive than the massive amount of change created by upending the insurance industry.

Actually, hospitals very much did and DO turn away dying patients because they don't have insurance. You realize not all hospitals are public, right? And even public hospitals only have to make sure someone won't die right then and there. If they're going to die in a month, they're absolutely allowed to turn them away.

Here's what taxes SHOULD look like: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/29/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/


And PS- when capital gains are taxed like labor, and when these tax rates go back into effect- 90% of this country is going to suddenly find themselves making more. Taxes used to be set up to make it less cost effective to keep paying CEOs more and more. But now, the capital gains loophole is used to pay the top earners at companies. And the fact that since the early 80s, companies can now buy their own stock back on the market to artificially inflate price (which is known as "corruption" anywhere and anytime outside of 1982-2016 US), and BOOM- you have massive income inequality.

Taxes aren't just about paying for social services (which is definitely a big part of it), they're about making sure that income inequality can only stretch so far.

[everan]

1. So middle class people relying on their stock investments in their retirement should be taxed at higher rates for selling stock?

2. Corporate taxes are something like 8% of the total federal government's revenue, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by tripling the audits for such a relatively small slice of the pie?

1. I hate to appear to be on the side of the Democrat, but maybe a more sensible approach would be to phase the 15% max long term cap gains tax rate out by income. Or exclude it for General Partners. The biggest problem with taxing Private Equity is that the Limited Partners investing tend to be Pension funds, Insurance companies & Public Endowments and arguably, we want those groups to make lots of money to fund our retirement. If the General partners pay more taxes, they'll try and take it out of the hide of the LLPs.

2. I'm more worried about Corporate tax rates being too high, not too low. We already have enough companies booking income outside the country to avoid our taxes if not wholesale moving out to tax havens like Ireland. If you tax too high, you encourage tax evasive activity. And I certainly don't think the IRS needs to audit more corporate returns, public companies have audited financials.

[Tgo01]

Actually, hospitals very much did and DO turn away dying patients because they don't have insurance. You realize not all hospitals are public, right?

This doesn't matter. By law all emergency rooms that accept Medicaid are required to check out anyone who enters the emergency and then perform any emergency care required, regardless of ability of the person to pay. Almost every single hospital accepts Medicaid so this law covers almost every single hospital in the US.


And even public hospitals only have to make sure someone won't die right then and there. If they're going to die in a month, they're absolutely allowed to turn them away.

What ailment is someone suffering from that they would die in a month without treatment and said treatment isn't considered emergency life saving treatment, yet with non emergency life saving treatment they would live?

[~Rocktar~]

Taxes aren't just about paying for social services (which is definitely a big part of it), they're about making sure that income inequality can only stretch so far.

Aren't you cute? Income taxes are about wealth redistribution plain and simple. The vast majority of government could be funded without them if you took away entitlement programs. Any other reasoning is simply ignorant. You would figure that after nearly 100 years of this kind of nonsense and it not working that people would realize that it won't work.

[GS4Pirate]

Taxes aren't just about paying for keeping voters on the plantation (which is definitely a big part of it), they're about punishing people for leaving the plantation.

Fixed that for you.

[Wrathbringer]

Our combined household income puts us in the top 1% of the country, and both me and my boyfriend disagree with this statement vehemently. Taxes are crucial for the well being of this country and those in it. People like us pay too little, and we both vote for politicians who would increase our taxes- because we'd rather see free college tuition, universal health care, and the eradication of hunger in this country than us getting one more vacation every year.

This country was at its best when our tax rates were higher on top income earners. People who treat taxes like they're some immoral burden are short-sighted fools who value money over the things that really matter. We pay more in taxes than most of the folks on this forum take home in income every year, and you won't ever catch us complaining about the high tax rates. So unless you're in the lower 50% of income earners in this country, you shouldn't be complaining either.

You're retarded.

[Whirlin]

Okay, let's have it your way. Top earners already pay 40% in taxes while the lowest bracket is 10%. How much more do the rich need to pay in taxes before it's "fair"?


That's not an accurate Statement... They are taxed MARGINALLY at the 40% bracket... However, the way brackets work is that the first dollar you make is taxed at that rate... If brackets go from 0-25k for 10% tax rate, and the next bracket starts at $25,001 for 15%, if you make $25001, you don't pay 15% on all 25001, it's the 10% for the first 25k, and then that $1 is taxed at 15%.

Additionally, another thing to consider is that deductions are worth more the higher your tax bracket. So, if you had $1m in mortgage interest, if you're currently being taxed at 40%, that $1m deduction would be a higher absolute reduction in taxable burden versus someone at less than the 40% marginal tax rate with the same deduction.

So, we can talk about marginal tax rates of 40%, but effective tax rates (total taxes paid versus income) end up being SIGNIFICANTLY less once reductions and deductions are applied. Given the mechanics of a standard deduction, and the manner at which marginal tax rates are applied, it is actually impossible for someone to have an effective tax rate of 40%.

All of that being said, and actually trying to contribute to the discussion that I haven't been reading up on... the other issue that the US needs to consider with taxing the top 1% is that they can just as easily move to another country, and potentially continue earning the income... which simply results in a loss to US tax revenue. It ends up being a balance of supply and demand to provide the highest economic benefit to the country.

[Silvean]

Top 1% of income in your household? Isn't that over 400,000? I've said before that I get screwed hard by capital gains taxes but I don't have that kind of money coming in. I'd be planning international travel rather than arguing with 3 or 4 people on here.

[Gnomad]

That's not an accurate Statement... They are taxed MARGINALLY at the 40% bracket... However, the way brackets work is that the first dollar you make is taxed at that rate... If brackets go from 0-25k for 10% tax rate, and the next bracket starts at $25,001 for 15%, if you make $25001, you don't pay 15% on all 25001, it's the 10% for the first 25k, and then that $1 is taxed at 15%.

Additionally, another thing to consider is that deductions are worth more the higher your tax bracket. So, if you had $1m in mortgage interest, if you're currently being taxed at 40%, that $1m deduction would be a higher absolute reduction in taxable burden versus someone at less than the 40% marginal tax rate with the same deduction.

So, we can talk about marginal tax rates of 40%, but effective tax rates (total taxes paid versus income) end up being SIGNIFICANTLY less once reductions and deductions are applied. Given the mechanics of a standard deduction, and the manner at which marginal tax rates are applied, it is actually impossible for someone to have an effective tax rate of 40%.

All of that being said, and actually trying to contribute to the discussion that I haven't been reading up on... the other issue that the US needs to consider with taxing the top 1% is that they can just as easily move to another country, and potentially continue earning the income... which simply results in a loss to US tax revenue. It ends up being a balance of supply and demand to provide the highest economic benefit to the country.

You still pay US taxes regardless of where you live unless you renounce your citizenship.

[Kembal]

So middle class people relying on their stock investments in their retirement should be taxed at higher rates for selling stock?

Tier it. 15% below a certain level of income, higher rate above that level of income. Problem solved. (progressive tax rates work wonders.)



Corporate taxes are something like 8% of the total federal government's revenue, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by tripling the audits for such a relatively small slice of the pie?

They used to be a higher percentage, before more legal tax avoidance strategies became commonplace.

[Kembal]

I have to agree with this sentiment. Although I'm not a 1%er, I've never complained about paying taxes, it means I'm making money. I make enough to have enough to have paid real money for this game all these years :) even when I was paying by the hour back on Prodigy. I'm happy to do my fair share. I disagree on free college and I'm certainly not happy about how my medical insurance was gutted to provide insurance for those that previously didn't have it. I'm not saying that there aren't some nice outcomes to the plan, I just wish they would have found a way to provide it without changing mine. I used to like the idea of a 15% cap on long term capital gains until I realized that it only impacts average Americans occasionally. It's all those darn 2 & 20 carry interest goons that Bernie wants to tax that get all the benefit. They could certainly do their fair share.

Curious. What happened to your health insurance? (First off, are you on employer-provided health insurance, or were you purchasing in the individual market?)

[everan]

You still pay US taxes regardless of where you live unless you renounce your citizenship.
That's overly simplistic as well. At that level, it isn't just plain income, you are correct that moving to Ireland doesn't reduce your individual taxes. However, if you have 20 or 30 individual entities that you control, it's no big thing to structure them in such a way as for the income to be 'earned' in Ireland where the trading income tax rate is 12.5%.

[Parkbandit]

Our combined household income puts us in the top 1% of the country, and both me and my boyfriend disagree with this statement vehemently. Taxes are crucial for the well being of this country and those in it. People like us pay too little, and we both vote for politicians who would increase our taxes- because we'd rather see free college tuition, universal health care, and the eradication of hunger in this country than us getting one more vacation every year.

This country was at its best when our tax rates were higher on top income earners. People who treat taxes like they're some immoral burden are short-sighted fools who value money over the things that really matter. We pay more in taxes than most of the folks on this forum take home in income every year, and you won't ever catch us complaining about the high tax rates. So unless you're in the lower 50% of income earners in this country, you shouldn't be complaining either.

lulz.

We've been waging this "WAR ON POVERTY" for over 50 years... how's it been working for us so far?

You know what we need to do? PUT MORE MONEY INTO IT!

...

[GS4Pirate]

No income tax, national sales tax, take away federal control of all social programs and let the states decide what they need. End SSI, end Medicaid. Ban insurance, cap max interest rates at 1%. Allow the free economy to work I.E. stop stealing from people because you fucked your shit up.

[Parkbandit]

Top 1% of income in your household? Isn't that over 400,000? I've said before that I get screwed hard by capital gains taxes but I don't have that kind of money coming in.

If I had a dollar for every claim I've heard on this forum that isn't true, I'd be in the top 1% too.

In before "Oh, my mistake, I meant top 10%. I forgot a 0"

[Parkbandit]

No income tax, national sales tax, take away federal control of all social programs and let the states decide what they need. End SSI, end Medicaid. Ban insurance, cap max interest rates at 1%. Allow the free economy to work I.E. stop stealing from people because you fucked your shit up.

Welfare, unemployment, etc.. are meant to be safety nets. Those are important.

They were never intended to be alternatives to working for a living.

[Parkbandit]

They used to be a higher percentage, before more legal tax avoidance strategies became commonplace.

End the loopholes by making it simple.

That will never happen though, because the lawyers and accountants are in the Ruling Class and they have to protect their golden egg.

[Gnomad]

That's overly simplistic as well. At that level, it isn't just plain income, you are correct that moving to Ireland doesn't reduce your individual taxes. However, if you have 20 or 30 individual entities that you control, it's no big thing to structure them in such a way as for the income to be 'earned' in Ireland where the trading income tax rate is 12.5%.Okay, so what? That's not what Whirlin said.

[GS4Pirate]

Welfare, unemployment, etc.. are meant to be safety nets. Those are important.

They were never intended to be alternatives to working for a living.

I agree 100%. One of the things that pisses me off are people that never have children and expect to collect SSI, so fucking annoying, fuck it wasn't even supposed to be a retirement account.

[Atlanteax]

I agree 100%. One of the things that pisses me off are people that never have children and expect to collect SSI, so fucking annoying, fuck it wasn't even supposed to be a retirement account.

Wait wait ... are you saying it is a duty for citizens to breed?!?!
(Nevermind the problems related to the Poor having 'too many' kids)

In the meantime, why is it that they should not expect to collect SSI, when their wages/taxes were utilized for the prior generation's SSI?

[everan]

Okay, so what? That's not what Whirlin said.

This is what Whirlin said that I thought you were replying to: All of that being said, and actually trying to contribute to the discussion that I haven't been reading up on... the other issue that the US needs to consider with taxing the top 1% is that they can just as easily move to another country, and potentially continue earning the income... which simply results in a loss to US tax revenue. It ends up being a balance of supply and demand to provide the highest economic benefit to the country.

So I thought you were merely saying that people who were overtaxed couldn't escape taxes by moving because American citizens have to pay income tax no matter where they live in the world. I merely stated that it isn't necessarily true. If you give someone enough incentive to find a way to minimize their taxes by creating tax havens, the 1% have the resources to use them. Look at Greece, they have a high personal tax rate and consequently one of the higher incidence of off-book income. That's a good indicator that punitive tax rates reduce tax revenue. Even the Scandinavian countries with free everything suffer by having high tax rates.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/sorry-liberals-scandinavian-countries-arent-utopias/

[Parkbandit]

Wait wait ... are you saying it is a duty for citizens to breed?!?!
(Nevermind the problems related to the Poor having 'too many' kids)

In the meantime, why is it that they should not expect to collect SSI, when their wages/taxes were utilized for the prior generation's SSI?

I agree. If they worked and put money into SS, then they should be have every right to collect on it after they retire.

[GS4Pirate]

Wait wait ... are you saying it is a duty for citizens to breed?!?!
(Nevermind the problems related to the Poor having 'too many' kids)

In the meantime, why is it that they should not expect to collect SSI, when their wages/taxes were utilized for the prior generation's SSI?

I will go as far to say, it's the duty of any species to breed. It's how nature works, fucking, lots and lots of fucking.

Basically SSI is designed so your kids are paying your current bill. If you have no children, someone else's children are paying your bill and their parents bill. I think you may have answered your own question...

P.S. I overlooked this "(Nevermind the problems related to the Poor having 'too many' kids)" Logic gives zero support to this being true in any way, the earths population is greater than any time in the past and the ease for one to obtain a loaf of bread in a "free society" is easier than any time in human history.

[time4fun]

I agree 100%. One of the things that pisses me off are people that never have children and expect to collect SSI, so fucking annoying, fuck it wasn't even supposed to be a retirement account.

It takes a special kind of monster to be angry when a disabled person gets to eat that month.

[time4fun]

I will go as far to say, it's the duty of any species to breed. It's how nature works, fucking, lots and lots of fucking.

Basically SSI is designed so your kids are paying your current bill. If you have no children, someone else's children are paying your bill and their parents bill. I think you may have answered your own question...


No Cruela, the point of SSI is to make sure disabled people who can't work don't end up on the streets starving.

[Atlanteax]

I will go as far to say, it's the duty of any species to breed. It's how nature works, fucking, lots and lots of fucking.

Basically SSI is designed so your kids are paying your current bill. If you have no children, someone else's children are paying your bill and their parents bill. I think you may have answered your own question...

P.S. I overlooked this "(Nevermind the problems related to the Poor having 'too many' kids)" Logic gives zero support to this being true in any way, the earths population is greater than any time in the past and the ease for one to obtain a loaf of bread in a "free society" is easier than any time in human history.

If anything, the population of humanity needs to be *shrinking*.

Excessive human population = exterminating other species on Earth
Excessive human population = increased resource scarcity ... (drinkable) water will soon be considered a valuable natural resource to fight wars over, as oil was

We no longer have wars/epidemics as population checks (incidentally, surviving wars/epidemic no longer serves as a social mobility ladder for the poor)
If anything, more of the world, especially South Asia, needs to follow China's (now relaxed) one-child policy.

In the meantime, with sustained automation and steadily increasing per-capital resource exploitation ... with a shrinking population, there is inherently more wealth for all
Which particularly improves the well-being of the poor as there becomes less scarcity (food & water) and manual labor becomes more valued.

[Warriorbird]

If anything, the population of humanity needs to be *shrinking*.

Excessive human population = exterminating other species on Earth
Excessive human population = increased resource scarcity ... (drinkable) water will soon be considered a valuable natural resource to fight wars over, as oil was

We no longer have wars/epidemics as population checks (incidentally, surviving wars/epidemic no longer serves as a social mobility ladder for the poor)
If anything, more of the world, especially South Asia, needs to follow China's (now relaxed) one-child policy.

In the meantime, with sustained automation and steadily increasing per-capital resource exploitation ... with a shrinking population, there is inherently more wealth for all
Which particularly improves the well-being of the poor as there becomes less scarcity (food & water) and manual labor becomes more valued.

Clearly a sign of the End Times when Atlanteax and I agree on stuff.

[Gelston]

Clearly a sign of the End Times when Atlanteax and I agree on stuff.

No. We can colonize the moon by 2022.

[Kembal]

End the loopholes by making it simple.

That will never happen though, because the lawyers and accountants are in the Ruling Class and they have to protect their golden egg.

I'd think the companies themselves that'd get these loopholes also want to protect their golden egg, along with their shareholders. They're paying less than the normal tax rate, so they don't benefit from corporate tax reform.

I benefit from a bunch of these loopholes myself at my company (R&D tax credit, domestic manufacturing deduction, alternative fuels deduction (we use propane for our forklifts), etc.). Now, since we're a S corporation, getting rid of these loopholes and doing corporate tax reform but not doing individual tax reform would mean I (and the other shareholders) would pay higher taxes, so I suspect we'd reclassify as a C corporation in a hurry. (for those not familiar with corporate taxation, S corporation means that the company "passes" its annual income to its shareholders, and the shareholders are taxed directly on that income. C corporation means that the company holds the income and is taxed on the income, and then the shareholders are taxed on any dividend distributions of the income later)

[GS4Pirate]

If anything, the population of humanity needs to be *shrinking*.

Excessive human population = exterminating other species on Earth
Excessive human population = increased resource scarcity ... (drinkable) water will soon be considered a valuable natural resource to fight wars over, as oil was

We no longer have wars/epidemics as population checks (incidentally, surviving wars/epidemic no longer serves as a social mobility ladder for the poor)
If anything, more of the world, especially South Asia, needs to follow China's (now relaxed) one-child policy.

In the meantime, with sustained automation and steadily increasing per-capital resource exploitation ... with a shrinking population, there is inherently more wealth for all
Which particularly improves the well-being of the poor as there becomes less scarcity (food & water) and manual labor becomes more valued.

If this is what you truly believe, why are you not six feet under? Seriously, if all the people that believe this shit just offed themselves, their goal would be achieved. Imagine, everyone would be happy.

Any day of the week, I'm going to put my bet on nature to handle the problem rather than some nut that thinks they have a secret copy of the earths operating manual. So far there is zero evidence that supports we have a population problem, population continues to rise and life expectancy continues to increase, science and nature completely disagree with this fallacy.

[ClydeR]

Apropos of everything..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70yqithPgcY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70yqithPgcY

[ClydeR]

If anything, the population of humanity needs to be *shrinking*.

Excessive human population = exterminating other species on Earth
Excessive human population = increased resource scarcity ... (drinkable) water will soon be considered a valuable natural resource to fight wars over, as oil was

There's plenty of resources in this solar system to last us for another thousand years. Why else would God have made the other planets? By the time we exhaust the resources of this solar system, we will have FTL and we can start using the resources of other solar systems. I would already have invented FTL if I didn't have to devote a substantial portion of my brain to posting on the internet.

[Gelston]

ClydeRetard!

HAHAHAHA THE R MEANS RETARD!!!!

[Tgo01]

That's not an accurate Statement... They are taxed MARGINALLY at the 40% bracket... However, the way brackets work is that the first dollar you make is taxed at that rate... If brackets go from 0-25k for 10% tax rate, and the next bracket starts at $25,001 for 15%, if you make $25001, you don't pay 15% on all 25001, it's the 10% for the first 25k, and then that $1 is taxed at 15%.

Well yeah, her supposedly being part of the 1% I figured she knew what I meant.


but effective tax rates (total taxes paid versus income) end up being SIGNIFICANTLY less once reductions and deductions are applied.

This is true all across the board, not just for the 1%. The 1% still pay a much higher effective tax rate than every other bracket. Romney's 47% thing had a bit of truth to it, that's about the percentage of people who either pay no federal income taxes or actually have a negative federal income tax burden.

[everan]

I benefit from a bunch of these loopholes myself at my company (R&D tax credit, domestic manufacturing deduction, alternative fuels deduction (we use propane for our forklifts), etc.).
The tax credits you mention aren't loopholes, they're incentives to get you to do things that the policy writers think are either good for the economy or the environment. I have no criticism of your point, I just feel like calling them loopholes makes them sound bad, when they are there for a good cause (depending on your politics.) Much like the ITC is a manipulation of the tax code to incentivize renewable energy.

[FinisWolf]

No Cruela, the point of SSI is to make sure disabled people who can't work don't end up on the streets starving.

Yea, doesn't sound like DF!-Pirate knows what he/she is talking about.

SSI - LINK (https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/)
SDI - LINK (http://www.edd.ca.gov/Disability/SDI_Online.htm) - California's Version
SS - LINK (https://www.ssa.gov/)

Three different things.

[Tgo01]

Tier it. 15% below a certain level of income, higher rate above that level of income. Problem solved. (progressive tax rates work wonders.)

Ah so the problem isn't that a 15% tax rate on the sale of long term stock investments is evil, it's that it's only evil if "the rich" pay that tax rate. Also it already scales, you pay anywhere between 0% and 20%, depending on your income.


They used to be a higher percentage, before more legal tax avoidance strategies became commonplace.

I doubt that.

[GS4Pirate]

No Cruela, the point of SSI is to make sure disabled people who can't work don't end up on the streets starving.

Exactly, so why is it being used as a retirement account?


It takes a special kind of monster to be angry when a disabled person gets to eat that month.

I do plenty to help out my fellow man, I just don't need to have a gun held to my head to do it nor do I need you to decide who I should help. Now did you have anything logical to add to the conversation or just more feminist style shaming ?

[GS4Pirate]

Yea, doesn't sound like DF!-Pirate knows what he/she is talking about.

SSI - LINK (https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/)
SDI - LINK (http://www.edd.ca.gov/Disability/SDI_Online.htm) - California's Version
SS - LINK (https://www.ssa.gov/)

Three different things.

Does California have SDI on top of SSI withholding's? Honestly I don't know, if that's the case that would blow.

[GS4Pirate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLTfOAYfbao

[Latrinsorm]

True, but I would argue it's not as stupid of an argument that the rich should "pay their fair share" so you still got me beat there. The two aren't mutually exclusive. So middle class people relying on their stock investments in their retirement should be taxed at higher rates for selling stock? Corporate taxes are something like 8% of the total federal government's revenue, what exactly do you hope to accomplish by tripling the audits for such a relatively small slice of the pie?Fun fact, you don't pay capital gains tax on distributions from IRAs even if one of your holdings generated a capital gain.
That's incredibly dramatic. Hospitals didn't turn away dying patients because they didn't have insurance. I just don't think that the way to fix a problem that 20% (purported) of the population has is best done by changing the 80% that is working. Heck, they could have just put them on Medicare and it would have been less expensive than the massive amount of change created by upending the insurance industry.The system was not working for everyone who had insurance, though. For example, I had insurance and have greatly benefited from the pre-existing conditions change.
lulz. We've been waging this "WAR ON POVERTY" for over 50 years... how's it been working for us so far?Quite well, in fact!
You know what we need to do? PUT MORE MONEY INTO IT! ...This is also true.

[Tgo01]

Fun fact, you don't pay capital gains tax on distributions from IRAs even if one of your holdings generated a capital gain.

Fun fact, there are contribution limits to IRAs.

[Warriorbird]

Fun fact, there are contribution limits to IRAs.

You can do some clever work with those limits.

[Tgo01]

You can do some clever work with those limits.

Fun fact, no.

[Warriorbird]

Fun fact, no.

Fun fact. You're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-directed_IRA

[Gelston]

Fun fact. You're wrong.

Fun fact, you're all homosexual beavers.

[Warriorbird]

Fun fact, you're all homosexual beavers.

I cannot lie. I do love beavers.

[Tgo01]

Fun fact. You're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-directed_IRA

Fun fact, the contribution limits for IRAs is a total IRA limit spread across all of one's IRA accounts.

[Tgo01]

Fun fact, you're all homosexual beavers.

Why we gotta be beavers? That's speciesist.

[Latrinsorm]

Fun fact, there are contribution limits to IRAs.That is a fun fact, but regrettably not a relevant one to the discussion at hand.

[Tgo01]

That is a fun fact, but regrettably not a relevant one to the discussion at hand.

How is it not relevant with me saying you would be penalizing middle class earners if we increased the tax rate for selling long term stock investments in their retirement, and you saying they could invest in IRAs, and me saying IRAs have a limit?

Fun fact, people might want to invest more money than the yearly contribution limit of IRAs.

[Warriorbird]

Fun fact, the contribution limits for IRAs is a total IRA limit spread across all of one's IRA accounts.

Because people routinely purchase business buildings with a $5,500 limit. No. There's a number of differences between self-directed and "traditional."

[Tgo01]

Because people routinely purchase business buildings with a $5,500 limit. No. There's a number of differences between self-directed and "traditional."

As far as the contribution limits go, what are the difference?

[Warriorbird]

As far as the contribution limits go, what are the difference?

Cash contributions are limited in very similar ways to other IRAs. Non cash contributions are limited in that they cannot be personally benefiting you right now (in addition to a few other rules)which allows some potentially substantial differences from traditional IRAs.

[Latrinsorm]

How is it not relevant with me saying you would be penalizing middle class earners if we increased the tax rate for selling long term stock investments in their retirement, and you saying they could invest in IRAs, and me saying IRAs have a limit? Fun fact, people might want to invest more money than the yearly contribution limit of IRAs.Some people might, sure, and if you had said "some middle class people" etc. I wouldn't have pointed out your error, as it would not have existed. I look at peoples' tax returns all day, nobody in the middle class needs to generate capital gains in retirement, and that's without resorting to grand mal grosse wire fraud as Warriorbird has advised in a legally actionable manner.

[Warriorbird]

Some people might, sure, and if you had said "some middle class people" etc. I wouldn't have pointed out your error, as it would not have existed. I look at peoples' tax returns all day, nobody in the middle class needs to generate capital gains in retirement, and that's without resorting to grand mal grosse wire fraud as Warriorbird has advised in a legally actionable manner.

Aw Latrin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-directed_IRA are typically not owned by the middle class... which does seem to unfortunately support Tgo01 here in spite of my efforts to foil him.

It'd probably completely blow people's minds if they knew their IRA could get loans or enter into partnerships. They're a bit like people (just like corporations).

[Tgo01]

Cash contributions are limited in very similar ways to other IRAs. Non cash contributions are limited in that they cannot be personally benefiting you right now (in addition to a few other rules)which allows some potentially substantial differences from traditional IRAs.

The contribution limit is still like 5 grand a year.

[Gelston]

The contribution limit is still like 5 grand a year.

So is your mom.

[Tgo01]

Some people might, sure, and if you had said "some middle class people" etc. I wouldn't have pointed out your error, as it would not have existed. I look at peoples' tax returns all day, nobody in the middle class needs to generate capital gains in retirement, and that's without resorting to grand mal grosse wire fraud as Warriorbird has advised in a legally actionable manner.

Nobody in the middle class needs to generate capital gains? Look who is believing in something without evidence now. Evidentally.

[Tgo01]

So is your mom.

Well yeah.

[Warriorbird]

The contribution limit is still like 5 grand a year.

Note that I said you could play around with said limit. I personally know of somebody (not myself) who's IRA purchased a $480,000 business property with a loan on private stock as collateral. Doesn't violate the limit at all.

[Tgo01]

Note that I said you could play around with said limit. I personally know of somebody (not myself) who's IRA purchased a $480,000 business property with a loan on private stock as collateral. Doesn't violate the limit at all.

Sure sounds illegal to me.

[Warriorbird]

Sure sounds illegal to me.

That's what all the liberal types say. As good old Mitt once said, "Corporations are people, my friend."

[Tgo01]

That's what all the liberal types say. As good old Mitt once said, "Corporations are people, my friend."

Corporations are people. The supreme court has ruled on this.

[Warriorbird]

Corporations are people. The supreme court has ruled on this.

Mmmmhmm. I consider the self-directed IRA somewhat similarly fair to nonprofits having for profit subsidiaries that get loaned tax-free property.

[Tgo01]

All IRAs have a contribution limit. Just because your friend broke the law doesn't make it legal.

[Warriorbird]

All IRAs have a contribution limit. Just because your friend broke the law doesn't make it legal.

Self-directed IRAs are allowed to have non-recourse loans. Your liberal dander is misplaced.

[Gelston]

Tgo supports Bernie Sanders.

[everan]

Sure sounds illegal to me.

You can roll 401Ks into your IRA when you change jobs and have enough to do all kinds of fun self-directed stuff. I write covered calls, but that's about the extent of my wild and crazy ways. IRA sounds like it should be low risk stuff, but there's plenty of high risk stuff going on.

[Tgo01]

Tgo supports Bernie Sanders.

You take that back!!


You can roll 401Ks into your IRA when you change jobs and have enough to do all kinds of fun self-directed stuff. I write covered calls, but that's about the extent of my wild and crazy ways. IRA sounds like it should be low risk stuff, but there's plenty of high risk stuff going on.

Well yeah, if WB's friend is rolling over his IRAs or putting up just part of the money on this property then that sounds right.

If WB's friend invested 260k in cash in property in a single year that was a pure IRA invest then it doesn't sound right.

[everan]

The system was not working for everyone who had insurance, though. For example, I had insurance and have greatly benefited from the pre-existing conditions change.By all means, not everything that came out of ObamaCare was bad. Pre-existing conditions reform and allowing kids up to age 25 to be covered on a parents policy were great changes. I think both of those things should have been required all along. But they could have been done without upended the insurance model. Now my employees have the same payment, but have lots more out of pocket because the deductibles have been elevated. I predict that individual health care costs will decrease not because of a successful system, but because the working poor won't be able to afford doctor visits. The other big problem with the debate in general is that people confuse the right to health care with the right to health insurance. It is not necessary to have health insurance to obtain health care.

[everan]

You take that back!!



Well yeah, if WB's friend is rolling over his IRAs or putting up just part of the money on this property then that sounds right.

If WB's friend invested 260k in cash in property in a single year that was a pure IRA invest then it doesn't sound right.Or he's an amazing investor or just really old and started investing early and built up a lot of profit.

[Tgo01]

Or he's an amazing investor or just really old and started investing early and built up a lot of profit.

Yeah rolling over his IRA is fine. From everything I have read and understand on the subject though it would be totally illegal for his friend to take 260k from the bank and invest it all in any form of IRA in a single year.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah rolling over his IRA is fine. From everything I have read and understand on the subject though it would be totally illegal for his friend to take 260k from the bank and invest it all in any form of IRA in a single year.

Only on him if the IRA doesn't cover it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-directed_IRA


An IRA can purchase any type of real estate as long as the provider (aka custodian) of that IRA handles real estate. IRA providers that handle real estate are often called self-directed IRA providers. If the IRA does not have the full purchase price, the IRA can partner with a person, company/entity or another IRA, or it can secure a non-recourse loan to buy real estate. Whether the IRA is whole or part owner, IRA funds are used for purchase, maintenance, and expenses. When the property generates cash either with rental income or from sale, those funds go directly back to the IRA. The IRS prohibits certain actions. For example,neither the IRA holder nor any disqualified persons to that plan may live in or vacation in the property. The IRA holder makes the decisions about how the asset is maintained but cannot do the work themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonrecourse_debt

[Tgo01]

So...your friend doesn't outright own this property in his IRA, most of the value is owed to a bank?

Okay, sounds good.

[Warriorbird]

So...your friend doesn't outright own this property in his IRA, most of the value is owed to a bank?

Okay, sounds good.

I said it was through a loan a while ago. You can still acquire significant property and defer/avoid significant amounts of taxation because the income the property makes goes right into the IRA.

[FinisWolf]

Does California have SDI on top of SSI withholding's? Honestly I don't know, if that's the case that would blow.

SDI is State Disability Insurance, for individuals that get and are unable to return to work for a short period of time. SDI's rules may change from state to state which is why I stated the link is California's version.

SSI is Supplemental Security Income, for individuals that are aged, blind, and or disabled who have little to no income.

SS is Social Security, which is for individuals that retire, or become permanently disabled, or if the individual dies.

All three are very different programs. I can share that SSI and SS do have some minor overlap, and what an individual gets from SS, is taken from SSI (for individuals that receive both of these types of benefits).

All that said, one should know SSI is Federal, and is not withheld from an individuals salary. What is withheld is SS/Medicare, and SDI. For an individual making $5,000.00 a month gross the approximate withholding for SS is about $310.00 a month, for Medicare is about $72.50, and for SDI is about $45.00 a month. All in all, roughly $400.00 a month for an individual with a gross salary of $5,000.00 a month.

At least with SS there is the ability to see what the return on investment is. I used the ssa.gov's benefit calculator, and chose to see an estimate based on today's dollars (rather then estimated future dollars). Further, I continued using the $5k per month or $60k per year gross earnings. If an individual born in 1970 took retirement at age 62, they would receive roughly $1,329.00 a month in SS benefits, at age 67 roughly $1,965.00 a month in SS benefits, and at age 70 roughly $2,487.00 a month in SS benefits. There are also survivor benefits that one may be eligible for. If the $5k a month person died today for example, their spouse could receive at retirement age (for the person above) $1,711.00 a month, with a family maximum of $3,137.90 a month. The money is not great, but at least it is a start for preparing for ones future, or taking care of your family should you die. ( The SS Quick Calculator (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/index.html) ) <--- Link

[GS4Pirate]

SDI is State Disability Insurance, for individuals that get and are unable to return to work for a short period of time. SDI's rules may change from state to state which is why I stated the link is California's version.

SSI is Supplemental Security Income, for individuals that are aged, blind, and or disabled who have little to no income.

SS is Social Security, which is for individuals that retire, or become permanently disabled, or if the individual dies.

All three are very different programs. I can share that SSI and SS do have some minor overlap, and what an individual gets from SS, is taken from SSI (for individuals that receive both of these types of benefits).

All that said, one should know SSI is Federal, and is not withheld from an individuals salary. What is withheld is SS/Medicare, and SDI. For an individual making $5,000.00 a month gross the approximate withholding for SS is about $310.00 a month, for Medicare is about $72.50, and for SDI is about $45.00 a month. All in all, roughly $400.00 a month for an individual with a gross salary of $5,000.00 a month.

At least with SS there is the ability to see what the return on investment is. I used the ssa.gov's benefit calculator, and chose to see an estimate based on today's dollars (rather then estimated future dollars). Further, I continued using the $5k per month or $60k per year gross earnings. If an individual born in 1970 took retirement at age 62, they would receive roughly $1,329.00 a month in SS benefits, at age 67 roughly $1,965.00 a month in SS benefits, and at age 70 roughly $2,487.00 a month in SS benefits. There are also survivor benefits that one may be eligible for. If the $5k a month person died today for example, their spouse could receive at retirement age (for the person above) $1,711.00 a month, with a family maximum of $3,137.90 a month. The money is not great, but at least it is a start for preparing for ones future, or taking care of your family should you die. ( The SS Quick Calculator (https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/index.html) ) <--- Link

You didn't watch the video, you like losing a minimum of 17% on your investments? The video also explains how all that you described comes out of your SSI withholding's. You are being scammed my friend.

P.S. We may be confusing lingo a bit here. S.S.I. may be an older term that we used to describe the "program" as a whole. So when I say S.S.I. I do mean the entire program. If you look back you will see that I don't wish to get rid of these programs but put the individual states in control of those programs. I see no reason for the states to send moneys off to Washington, have them divide it up and then return it to the states, it's dumb.

What also should be noted, a married couple both heading into retirement, a spouse dies, one of those SSI accounts vanishes in thin air, an entire life savings.....gone. That would not happen to a private retirement account.


What is withheld is SS/Medicare, and SDI.

SDI must be a California thing, thank fucking god.

[FinisWolf]

Pre-existing conditions reform and allowing kids up to age 25 to be covered on a parents policy were great changes.

Working for government has allowed to the age of 26 for dependents for at least several decades.


I think both of those things should have been required all along.

I am on the fence here. I like that my children are covered until age 26; however, with the millennials, I believe it is just one more thing adding to their sense of entitlement. I constantly hear from the early twenty year-old's how they should be able to start at the top, and not have to go to school (trade or otherwise) to do it. (Not thinking outlier's here.) Hell, a lot of them believe they should not even have to work! (this is based on my interactions with this particular age group.) So, yea, on the fence.

[FinisWolf]

You didn't watch the video, you like losing a minimum of 17% on your investments? The video also explains how all that you described comes out of your SSI withholding's. You are being scammed my friend.

P.S. We may be confusing lingo a bit here. S.S.I. may be an older term that we used to describe the "program" as a whole. So when I say S.S.I. I do mean the entire program. If you look back you will see that I don't wish to get rid of these programs but put the individual states in control of those programs. I see no reason for the states to send moneys off to Washington, have them divide it up and then return it to the states, it's dumb.

No, I did not watch the video. No, I don't like losing on any investment, to answer your question(s).

SSI is NOT a withholding. Please educate yourself, I tried educating you, and you have chosen not to learn. That's fine, that is your choice. I will add though, that using the correct terminology will aide people in understanding your position and comments.

If you wish to call that a scam, then every taxpayer is being scammed. We know it, and honestly, I for one don't need my nose rubbed in it. Do you really think people paying into these withholding's don't know what they are? I've known since I was 12 years old. I remember getting pissed because I expected a check in the amount of $1,600.00 and instead received a check for about $1,200. I quickly educated myself. Was I happy? Hell no! What the hell am I to do about it? Bitch on a text based MUDD forum? Yea, that will get me a long ways.

SSI is not an "older term", it has been being used for at least 26 years that I know of from personal experience for my mentally disabled brother.

Yes, the lingo is confusing, because you chose not to learn the correct terminology.

As to the rest of your commentary ... well ... I still request (and yes I realize you will do what you want) that you educate yourself. Until you learn what the program(s) actually do, who they do and do not support, who in fact oversees them, and to what degree (some of the agencies are ran by the state for example but overseen by the fed's), your positions simply won't hold water, because your arguments against them are nonsensical.

One last thing, at a high (high) level, I am not entirely against your idea of a position on this matter. I believe all things government can be streamlined as there simply is too much bureaucracy, and this can be drilled down into. But that is something that we, the taxpayers, have known for decades and decades (recall the jokes about the $75.00 hammers back in the seventies (when hammers were just a couple dollars), sadly, this is an actual reality now if you want a really nice hammer).

[GS4Pirate]

Finis, we have been using the term SSI for my entire life. You are basically making the argument that Southerners are wrong because they call all soft drinks Coke (or is it pepsi, it's been a long time). The video lays out perfectly how SSI works, you are the one that refuses to educate yourself.

Bitching on forums for the past decade has been the driving force behind the liberty movement. Almost every major talking point that is being discussed in these past few election cycles have come from Liberty activists bitching on forums. It's why everyone is fired up Finis, it's finally reached critical mass.

[Kembal]

Ah so the problem isn't that a 15% tax rate on the sale of long term stock investments is evil, it's that it's only evil if "the rich" pay that tax rate. Also it already scales, you pay anywhere between 0% and 20%, depending on your income.

Why exactly should long term capital gains get preferential income tax treatment? (i.e. cap it at 20%) Mind you, I like that it has this. Logically though, I'm not sure there's an actual justification.



I doubt that.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=264&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/type_share_historical.gif

It used to be a lot higher.

[Kembal]

The tax credits you mention aren't loopholes, they're incentives to get you to do things that the policy writers think are either good for the economy or the environment. I have no criticism of your point, I just feel like calling them loopholes makes them sound bad, when they are there for a good cause (depending on your politics.) Much like the ITC is a manipulation of the tax code to incentivize renewable energy.

I don't disagree with you on any of it, actually. But if you actually want to bring down the overall corporate tax rate, a lot of these broader incentives (as opposed to the ones targeted at specific industries that really don't make a lot of sense) have to go. I'm not sure a lot of people realize this when they call for a lowering of the overall corporate tax rate while saying it should be revenue neutral.

[everan]

Why exactly should long term capital gains get preferential income tax treatment? (i.e. cap it at 20%) Mind you, I like that it has this. Logically though, I'm not sure there's an actual justification.

The justification is that it is good for the economy among other things. It encourages long term investment which should spur growth and lend stability to markets. It helps to fix part of the fact that inflation, which isn't really profit is taxed.

Here's a good article on the pro's and con's from the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-should-capital-gains-be-taxed-1425271052

Here's a basic reasoning for it's existence from the Tax Foundation:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rate

[Kembal]

The justification is that it is good for the economy among other things. It encourages long term investment which should spur growth and lend stability to markets. It helps to fix part of the fact that inflation, which isn't really profit is taxed.

Here's a good article on the pro's and con's from the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-should-capital-gains-be-taxed-1425271052

Here's a basic reasoning for it's existence from the Tax Foundation:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rate

I'll accept the inflation argument as a reason (and I think indexing to solve that is a really complicated idea to put into practice), but that's not enough for a 15% differential for a two year investment versus a one year investment. Long term investment does spur growth, but you get rewarded for that with better returns, for the most part.

Capped rates dependent on the length the investment is held would achieve many of the same purposes while reducing distortions, as opposed to the one year breakpoint that's used now.

[Delcry]

If we simply tax corporations and the top 1% of the elites of this country the amount that is fair, we can easily wipe out poverty, hunger, crime, preventable diseases and a host of other societal woes. And if all other countries followed our example, we could eliminate war.

And isn't that a good thing and something we should all strive for? World Peace is within our grasp, all we have to do is elect the right President who is brave enough to do what she believes is the best thing for all of mankind.

[Tgo01]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/type_share_historical.gif

Oh you mean back when social security/Medicare tax was still very low or non-existent and before individual tax rates started to sky rocket?

So it's not so much that corporations just used to pay more but rather the federal government had little sources of other income?

[~Rocktar~]

If we simply tax corporations and the top 1% of the elites of this country the amount that is fair, we can easily wipe out poverty, hunger, crime, preventable diseases and a host of other societal woes.

No it wouldn't. Since we have something on the order of 60-70 trillion dollars (possibly more due to Obama care and depending on who's numbers you want to use) of UNFUNDED social entitlement spending on the laws over the next 20 years here is something to consider, that amount is more than twice the amount of money that exists everywhere in the whole world. That's right, you can't tax enough in the 20 years to pay that debt, the money doesn't exist. You can't tax and spend away poverty, if you could, the war on poverty for the past 60+ years would have resulted in lower poverty and that simply isn't the case.

[Latrinsorm]

Nobody in the middle class needs to generate capital gains? Look who is believing in something without evidence now. Evidentally.Send them my way, I know a guy who can help them structure their retirement to avoid this and many other issues. :)
Oh you mean back when social security/Medicare tax was still very low or non-existent and before individual tax rates started to sky rocket?The top bracket increased from 25% in 1931 to 63% in 1932, then to 79% in 1936 and 88% in 1942.

[drauz]

Quite well, in fact!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._U nited_States..PNG

[drauz]

Does California have SDI on top of SSI withholding's? Honestly I don't know, if that's the case that would blow.

SSI isn't paid from SS withholding, its paid from the general tax revenue.

[time4fun]

The justification is that it is good for the economy among other things. It encourages long term investment which should spur growth and lend stability to markets. It helps to fix part of the fact that inflation, which isn't really profit is taxed.

Here's a good article on the pro's and con's from the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-should-capital-gains-be-taxed-1425271052

Here's a basic reasoning for it's existence from the Tax Foundation:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rate

Is it good for the economy? It's more good for parts of the economy, and it's problematic for other parts of the economy. For example, the capital gains tax rate is why execs at public companies are often largely paid in stock (instead of wages), and that, in turn, is why so many companies use huge chunks of their profits to buy back their own stock to inflate the prices. (Because the SEC lost its soul in the 80s)

Those have helped drive down wages by creating an incentive to direct company money back into the investment market and by bypassing the intended effect of a progressive tax rate on wages. (When high incomes are taxed at higher rates, companies are less likely to dump them into executive salaries since it impacts the ROI. When they can bypass the progressive tax system entirely, there's no reason not to keep pumping money into executive salaries and equity).

There's a different between creating strong stock markets and creating a strong economy.

[ClydeR]

We discussed this briefly in another thread, but I thought that as long as I had the data I may as well look at all income ranges: are taxes today higher or lower than in previous years, and for whom? I will use the sample of 1955-present for reasons I assume are obvious and go by $5,000 blocks of today's dollars. Here are the results for lowest taxes, married filing jointly:

1977: $0 - $30,000
1986: $35,000 - $50,000
2009: $55,000 - $320,000
1988: $330,000+

Taxes have gone up since 2009 in the sense that the brackets apply earlier on real dollars. For illustration, on 150,000 real dollars you would pay 19.6% in 2009 compared to 19.8% in 2013, or a difference of $280. We see similar bands for every other filing situation:

Married filing singly
1977: $0 - $15,000
1986: $20,000 - $25,000
2009: $30,000 - $160,000
1988: $165,000+

Single
1977: $0 - $20,000
1986: $25,000 - $35,000
2009: $40,000 - $225,000
1988: $230,000+

Head of household
1977: $0 - $15,000
1986: $20,000 - $35,000
2009: $40,000 - $265,000
1988: $270,000+

Thus, for a broad spectrum of middle and upper-middle class Americans, taxes haven't been lower since before World War II.



I don't understand what those number represent. And since I'm very smart, it must mean that you didn't explain it well.