Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
like your creative math on SS tax rates
Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
FICA & SECA Tax Rates
We're used to your stupid bs, jackass. It's like 2nd grade bs. Factually, you brainwashed functional morons lose every time. Your party is a disastrous disgrace that attracts only greedy a-holes and misinformed bigots.So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lolbut Dems would like to fix your banana republic mess.
59 votes in the Senate not enough for the smartest president ever? Poor baby.
Nope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
Tissue?
How can you type thru your tears?
Just the best economy in the world, with no Pub bubble like W and Raygun. You wouldn't understand, chump.We're used to your stupid bs, jackass. It's like 2nd grade bs. Factually, you brainwashed functional morons lose every time. Your party is a disastrous disgrace that attracts only greedy a-holes and misinformed bigots.So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lolNope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
Tissue?
How can you type thru your tears?
Waaaah, Obama couldn't succeed with only 59 votes in the Senate.
Poor baby.
=================I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.Much of the rent collected goes towards bills. Yes, you write that money off because you used the rent money to pay those bills. A flat tax system (the way I've always understood it) would eliminate those write-offs. That means I would have to pay tax on all rental collections even though it merely passed through my hands to another entity. That could put me in a higher tax bracket as well when you add my income from work.
Well then it's not really a flat tax system then. Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS. In other words, nothing would change. A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field. That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax. There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all. Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table. A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.
Of course, the poor and the bottom 49% of all American earners pay no federal personal income tax at all so how much does it hurt them?
Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
Uh. Yes it is. Example. If you want to get rid of the mortgage deduction, then rates should be lowered for individuals.
If you want to get rid of depreciation on capital equipment as a deduction, then 100% of capital purchases should be eligible for deductions from income upon purchase.
We have a convoluted tax code because businesses and groups of individuals have quite rightly lobbied to offset high tax rates. You can't get rid of the deductions and leave rates high, unless you want to make the economy even worse.
the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
Well thanks for informing me of that. I've only been a landlord now for 25 years. It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
Well thanks for informing me of that. I've only been a landlord now for 25 years. It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts. Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
Let's see, pay 12.4% of my lifetime earnings, die a week before I start collecting benefits and my family gets
basically zero.
Wow, great insurance! Sounds like a program only an idiot or a liberal (but then I repeat myself) would create.
Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
That doesn't seem fair, does it?
PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans. And then there’s Social Security.
But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model. That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options. Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad. It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.” Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent. Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done. So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security
Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle
Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.
Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan
Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan
· Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested. Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory.
The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security
Galveston | Strengthen Social Security
"The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."
Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well
In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.
“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”
Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model
the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity:
Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing.
Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
Hey, look at that giant improvement over Social Security.
And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:
- A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
- A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
Wow! Those are giant improvements too!!!
- And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
Weird, you start with a LIE?
"Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing."
The spouse of a worker gets the survivors benefits he/she, usually half of the workers rate? I know, it blows a hole in your lie, but it's based in REALITY
Critics of the Alternate Plan say it is more like a savings program than a social insurance program for all Americans, which Social Security was created to be — particularly for low-wage retirees, widowed spouses and children with deceased parents.
“People forget that before Social Security, there really were poorhouses,” said Eric Kingson, co-director of the coalition Social Security Works.
The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.”
Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan.
....The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.
Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.
Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.
“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0
Poor nonrich and country you mean, with your party/greedy rich first heroes blocking reform and full recovery, 2nd grade level thinker. lol argghh...We're used to your stupid bs, jackass. It's like 2nd grade bs. Factually, you brainwashed functional morons lose every time. Your party is a disastrous disgrace that attracts only greedy a-holes and misinformed bigots.So proud to be a disastrous a-hole...enjoy hell, hater dupe. lolNope, the GOP CAN and HAS filibustered without the 60 REQUIRED to move legislation, no matter how smart a Prez is!
Tissue?
How can you type thru your tears?
Waaaah, Obama couldn't succeed with only 59 votes in the Senate.
Poor baby.
Did you look at the link I shared about how much Norway has in the bank? Care to respond?And you wonder why we're broke? Other countries aren't in debt because they don't spend so much on their military.We spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense.Cuts? Where at? The government is getting bigger budgets every year. We need some big time cuts. Corporate welfare needs to go. BofA, Wells Fargo, GE, GM, and Amtrak, need to be cut off. Then cut 15% across the rest of the budget. Raise taxes on everyone for four years, then cut them back. Get rid of tax exemptions for PACs. We need to also rein in all non-profit political organizations.
Didn't say we didn't, did I.
I heard the other day Norway has more money saved than their economy produces in a year. They saved their oil money from when gas was high because they knew it wouldn't last forever. So now they are using that money to help people. You would have given all the money to the rich and you would have never saved that money because your government doesn't do that.
Per capita, Japan, with no defense is more in debt than America. So are four other countries, including Greece. Are far as Norway, they carry a heavy debt also, I think you heard wrong. Tall tales is what you listened to. Reality what a concept.
But then I notice you guys like to compare the USA to other economies until you don't like the results then you understand its not apples to apples.
We have large ghettos and prisons. Those things cost money. How do you solve that? More jobs and better schools and more police. In other words regulate industry better and definitely raise taxes on the rich.
Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
All those making less than $35,000/yr are in the bottom 49%. BTW, I realize they do pay other taxes (as do we all), helping to pull the train, but the fact remains they pay NOTHING to help fund the massive federal gov't expenditures that are intended to make every American's life better. So you still haven't answered the question:
How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
96%?
106%
Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
like your creative math on SS tax rates
Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
How weird is that?
Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty. I know, that ponzi scheme called the stock market works better right? lol, PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
Yet before it, most seniors lived in POVERTY in the US, today SS keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty.
Yet today, American seniors are our wealthiest cohort.
Poor recent college graduates, laboring under mountains of student loan debt, struggling to find a job......finally get one and then 12.4% of their paycheck goes to some rich white guy who retired on a golf course.
That doesn't seem fair, does it?
PLEASE give me the SUCCESSFUL privatization of SS ANYWHERE?
How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
Across the country, state and local governments are facing huge unfunded liabilities for their employee pension plans. And then there’s Social Security.
But three neighboring Texas counties, which opted out of Social Security 30 years ago by creating personal retirement accounts, have avoided a fiscal train wreck while providing retirees with even more retirement income.
Galveston, Matagorda and Brazoria County employees, many of them union members, have seen their retirement savings grow every year, even during the Great Recession. If state and local governments—and Congress—are really looking for a path to long-term sustainable entitlement reform, they might start with what is referred to as the “Alternate Plan.”
Most proposals for creating a defined-contribution alternative to a state pension plan or Social Security use an IRA or 401(k) model. That is what the Utah legislature passed for new state employees beginning in July.
Under that model, the employee’s money, along with any employer contribution, goes into a personal account that invests in a limited number of approved options. Those accounts usually follow the stock market, in good times and in bad. It’s those “bad times,” like the one the country recently went through, that critics point to when opposing personal retirement accounts.
But the Alternate Plan takes a different approach, one I call a “banking model.” Employee and employer contributions are actively managed by a financial planner—in this case, First Financial Benefits, Inc., of Houston, which both originated the plan and has managed it since inception.
The contributions are pooled, like bank deposits, and top-rated financial institutions bid on the money. Those institutions guarantee an interest rate that won’t go below a base level, and could go higher if the market does well. Over the last decade, the accounts have earned between 3.75 percent and 5.75 percent every year, with an average of around 5 percent. The 1990s often saw even higher interest rates, 6.5 to 7 percent. Thus, when the market goes up, employees make more; and when the market goes down, employees still make something.
Like Social Security, employees contribute 6.2 percent of their income, with the county matching the contribution (Galveston has chosen to provide a slightly larger share). Once the county makes its contribution, its financial obligation is done. So there are no long-term unfunded liabilities.
But not all of that money goes into an employee’s retirement account. When financial planner Rick Gornto devised the Alternate Plan in 1981, he wanted it to be a complete substitute for Social Security. And Social Security isn’t just a retirement fund; it’s social insurance that provides a death benefit—a whopping $255—survivors’ insurance, and a disability benefit.
Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
How Three Texas Counties Created Personal Social Security Accounts and Prospered
Galveston ‘Opt-Out’ Plan Not a Serious Proposal for Social Security
Social Security and the Galveston plan do not share the same goals: Social Security is wage insurance that provides basic protection against loss of income resulting from retirement, disability or death of a worker; it is not intended to be a wealth-maximizing vehicle
Nearly everyone fares worse under the Galveston plan, with the possible exception of high earners with no dependents.
Women and low-income workers are not well served by the plan
Substantial inflation risks appear with the Galveston plan
· Under the Galveston plan, workers do not control how their funds are invested. Many advocates of the Galveston model tout the fact that participants would have more autonomy over their retirement decisions. In fact, workers have no control over how their funds are invested; those decisions are made at the county level. Moreover, far from being able to ‘opt-out’ of the system, participation in the Galveston plan is mandatory.
The Galveston plan’s options for claiming benefits means that some retirees could outlive their benefits, something that cannot occur under Social Security
Galveston | Strengthen Social Security
"The basic difference between the Texas plan and Social Security, Brainard said, is that the Texas plan is a "retirement savings plan that provides benefits based on contributions and investment performance, while Social Security is an insurance plan intended chiefly to prevent stark poverty in old age."
Rick Perry says employees in three counties left Social Security for alternate savings plans and are faring very well
In 1999, the Social Security Administration and the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) separately examined the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity: The lower one’s income and the longer one lived after retirement, the less advantage there was to participating in the program compared with Social Security. Also, Social Security payments increased with inflation, while payments under the Galveston plan did not.
“If you’re single, if you’re well off and you die within 10 years [of retirement], maybe you’ve done better,” said Eric Kingson, a professor of social work at Syracuse University and a vocal critic of the Galveston alternative. “For most people, it’s somewhere between ‘very bad’ and ‘not very good.’ ”
Galveston alternative to Social Security held up as model
the program adopted by Galveston and surrounding counties and found that its benefits depended on income and longevity:
Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing.
Part of the employer contribution in the Alternate Plan goes toward a term life insurance policy, which pays four times the employee’s salary tax free, up to a maximum of $215,000. That’s nearly 850 times Social Security’s death benefit.
Hey, look at that giant improvement over Social Security.
And those who retire under the Galveston model do much better than Social Security. For example:
- A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan, according to First Financial’s calculations.
- A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
Wow! Those are giant improvements too!!!
- And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security vs. $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.
Weird, you start with a LIE?
"Kinda like Social Security, eh? Where if you die before you start collecting, your family gets basically nothing."
The spouse of a worker gets the survivors benefits he/she, usually half of the workers rate? I know, it blows a hole in your lie, but it's based in REALITY
Critics of the Alternate Plan say it is more like a savings program than a social insurance program for all Americans, which Social Security was created to be — particularly for low-wage retirees, widowed spouses and children with deceased parents.
“People forget that before Social Security, there really were poorhouses,” said Eric Kingson, co-director of the coalition Social Security Works.
The General Accounting Office and the Social Security Administration conducted the most current comparative studies of the Alternate Plan and Social Security in 1999. The G.A.O. report noted “fundamental differences in the purpose and structure of the two approaches.”
Both the G.A.O. and Social Security studies concluded that lower-wage workers, particularly those with many dependents, would fare better under Social Security, while middle- and higher-wage workers were likely to fare better, at least initially, under the Alternate Plan.
....The lump-sum option is one of the biggest problems in the Alternate Plan, Mr. Kingson said, because “people end up unprotected.” If retirees do not choose the lifetime annuity, they could outlive their benefits and end up wards of the state.
Even Mr. Holbrook has outlived his Alternate Plan benefits. When he retired 15 years ago, he decided to receive $1,500 to $2,000 from his Alternate Plan account every month for 10 years. Now, his Alternate Plan account is empty.
Fortunately, Mr. Holbrook has other savings and, ultimately, $1,300 a month in Social Security benefits from his 27 years of contributions before his county dropped out of the program.
“It was a mistake to only take it for 10 years,” he said. “It should be over a lifetime, like Social Security.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/how-privatized-social-security-works-in-galveston.html?_r=0
What?
My first wife died 7 years ago I didn't get a dime of her SS money...
Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
All those making less than $35,000/yr are in the bottom 49%. BTW, I realize they do pay other taxes (as do we all), helping to pull the train, but the fact remains they pay NOTHING to help fund the massive federal gov't expenditures that are intended to make every American's life better. So you still haven't answered the question:
How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
96%?
106%
Good little skippy, ignore that the bottom 50% make LESS THAN AN AVERAGE OF $15,000 PER FAMILY, and whine about the PART of tax revenues that run Gov't. Typical of you to ignore the evidence that the TOTAL TAX BURDEN IN THE US IS BARELY PROGRESSIVE. Fukkin ideologue!
We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
Well thanks for informing me of that. I've only been a landlord now for 25 years. It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts. Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
Dad clearly prefers the former ... eating the loss. At least he would require "the rich" to do so.
the mortgage deduction is mostly just a favor for the real-estate lobby, it is a benefit renters dont get....it should be eliminated or severely cut back, with a cap.
businesses and groups have lobbied....you're right on that.
the pile up of debt is what will REALLY make the economy bad.....Eisenhower had a top MARGINAL rate of 91%.....we have since added even more to our debt....top rates should go back up to that.
We could if you want to see even more Americans leaving the country. Many are renouncing their citizenship at todays rates.
Rent is based on costs to the landlord and comparable rental units in the area. Every savings or cost to a landlord is considered when creating a rental price.
Tax write-offs are not what you think they are. If I pay $2,000 this year in mortgage interest, and I would normally pay 10% tax on that money, that's only $200.00 that I saved with the write-off. It's not that much to pass around to renters or anybody else for that matter. In other words, you don't deduct the 2K, you can only deduct the amount of tax you would normally pay on that 2K.
MORE right wing garbage. Shocking
Interest expense is a write off of INCOME. Pay $10,000 in interest, take $10,000 off your income
LOWEST SUSTAINED TAX BURDEN ON THE TOP 2% IN 80 YEARS? Fleeing the country? lol
Rental prices are created by DEMAND, ZERO TO DO WITH COSTS DUMMY!
Well thanks for informing me of that. I've only been a landlord now for 25 years. It's good to learn from somebody with more experience than I have.
True I only started in 1993 Bubs, but I 'll let you know the next time I get to charge MORE RENT BECAUSE MY COSTS INCREASE??? lol
That's why many landlords have an automatic annual rental increase in their contracts. Or haven't you heard of such a thing?
When costs to operate your business go up, you have two choices: eat the loss or increase revenue to recoup those losses.
=================I don't see that as a problem under the Flat Tax. As you would still calculate the final profit the same way with net receipts and expenses anyway.
Well then it's not really a flat tax system then. Those deductions are still write-offs and have to be itemized for the IRS. In other words, nothing would change. A flat tax system is designed to eliminate those write-offs so everybody is on the same playing field. That's why I brought up the idea of a progressive consumption tax. There are a lot of people who don't pay any kind of tax at all. Many of them are in fields of work that are illegal or under the table. A consumption tax hits everybody whether you're a school teacher or a prostitute because we all need to buy things.
True but the poor spend a far higher percentage of their income than the rich.
So 10% of a poor man's gross income hurts him a hell of a lot more than 10% of a rich man's income.
Of course, the poor and the bottom 49% of all American earners pay no federal personal income tax at all so how much does it hurt them?
Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
Forget about the "other" taxes the poor do pay?
Yet you are the one that forgets about those very same "other" taxes that the wealthy pay on top of income tax.
Wha, the working poor averaging less than $15,000 PER FAMILY at the bottom half, don't pay INCOME taxes. Forget the rest of the taxes THEY DO PAY *shaking head*
All those making less than $35,000/yr are in the bottom 49%. BTW, I realize they do pay other taxes (as do we all), helping to pull the train, but the fact remains they pay NOTHING to help fund the massive federal gov't expenditures that are intended to make every American's life better. So you still haven't answered the question:
How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
96%?
106%
Good little skippy, ignore that the bottom 50% make LESS THAN AN AVERAGE OF $15,000 PER FAMILY, and whine about the PART of tax revenues that run Gov't. Typical of you to ignore the evidence that the TOTAL TAX BURDEN IN THE US IS BARELY PROGRESSIVE. Fukkin ideologue!
The irony is thick with you and you are still dodging the question:
How much more than 86% of the total federal income tax burden should the top 25% have to bear? What would shut you the f*#k up?
96%?
106%
Sorry Buibs, I forgot you are a right winger who doesn't like following the posts
I WANT THE TAX RATE ON THE TOP 1/10TH OF 1%^ AND ABOVE TO GO BACK TO THE RATES THEY PAID 1932-1980
50%-70% EFFECTIVE rates!
THE BUFFETT RULES A GOOD START, AS WELL AS GETTING THE GOP ON BOARD WITH OBAMA'S LOWERING THE CORP TAX FROM 35% TO 28% AND GETTING RID OF LOOPHOLES!!!
Yeah, let me know when you find a source for that $2.7 trillion claim.
Already did Bubs, I can't help it you are to lazy and dishonest to argue it when it's brought up, like your creative math on SS tax rates, I linked TWICE!
like your creative math on SS tax rates
Posting the actual rates was creative? LOL!
Sure Bubs, THAT'S what YOU did, OOPS, NO YOU DIDN'T? I DID THOUGH YOU JUST LIED
FICA & SECA Tax Rates
Hey, look at that, your source has the same numbers I gave.
How weird is that?
Liar, it gives the REAL numbers where the total tax burden went up 3% of wages under Ronnie, and doubled on the self employed
HINT: EXCESS OF $2.7+ TRILLION TO HIDE THE REAL COSTS OF TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH
FICA & SECA Tax Rates
