Billionaires and Roth IRAs: the case for tax reform

[McDad]

Not sure. I figure it's got to be tied pretty closely to the gdp.

Good thing about a universal sales tax. Hits the government as well.

I understand your position that you're likely paying a high percentage of your money in taxes. And I agree. I wonder though, if prices rise 60% due to NST, how much would buying habits change?

Tax revenue projects are routinely inaccurate because the habits of the citizenry changed based on tax policy.

 

[LouderVol]

I understand your position that you're likely paying a high percentage of your money in taxes. And I agree. I wonder though, if prices rise 60% due to NST, how much would buying habits change?

Tax revenue projects are routinely inaccurate because the habits of the citizenry changed based on tax policy.

That's a fair point. I guess I see people saving as a good thing. It will cause a temporary correction as things balance out. But then the climb after would be much more steady. Imo.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Meanwhile...

Biden And Pelosi Set To Impose Tax Hikes On Small Businesses | ZeroHedge

1. Biden's increase in the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6 percent will hit small business sole proprietorships, LLCs, partnerships and S-corporations.

2. Biden’s corporate income tax rate hike from 21 percent to 28 percent targets one million small businesses across the country organized as corporations.

3. Biden's elimination of stepped up basis: A second death tax on small business.

 

[DuckInAPen]

Along this line of thought, why in the hell is there still a spousal benefit for social security? 2 guys work side by side for 40 years paying the same into SS. One guys wife never works outside the home and the other guys wife has a job and contributes to SS. The guy whose wife stayed at home draws 1.5 times as much as the guy whose wife earned her own SS benefit - that’s bs.

If it's such a good deal, the second guy or his wife can elect to become a homemaker and reap the same benefit. In any event, homemakers benefit society; our society's dysfunction is in no small measure a consequence and corollary of our paucity of homemakers.

 

[DuckInAPen]

It’s also backwards that those with a lot of kids create a bigger financial drain on government than those without, but those without are required to “contribute” more in taxes.

"Those with a lot of kids" will, on balance, contribute disproportionately to the Social Security and Medicare benefits of those without, to the common defense, and to a recognizably American culture.

We have a total fertility rate of 1.6 in this country (which, with the rate of illegitimacy exceeding 40%, means less than one legitimate child per woman). "Those with a lot of kids" (those, at least, who are raising their children in the nurturing shelter of a stable marriage) are not this country's problem.

 

[NorthDallas40]

"Those with a lot of kids" will, on balance, contribute disproportionately to the Social Security and Medicare benefits of those without, to the common defense, and to a recognizably American culture.

We have a total fertility rate of 1.6 in this country (which, with the rate of illegitimacy exceeding 40%, means less than one legitimate child per woman). "Those with a lot of kids" are not this country's problem.

It isn’t the collective responsibility of all of us to provide for the direct welfare of “those with a lot of kids.” If you can’t support them don’t have them.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

"Those with a lot of kids" will, on balance, contribute disproportionately to the Social Security and Medicare benefits of those without, to the common defense, and to a recognizably American culture.

We have a total fertility rate of 1.6 in this country (which, with the rate of illegitimacy exceeding 40%, means less than one legitimate child per woman). "Those with a lot of kids" (those, at least, who are raising their children in the nurturing shelter of a stable marriage) are not this country's problem.

Correct. If it was an 1800s farm based economy. But instead we are highly automated and don’t need nearly as many warm bodies. And every one of those kids is a tremendous drain on the tax base with the cost of their day car… education.

Then there’s that 61% of US households paying zero FIT thingy.

 

[Weezy]

Kids are an investment so you don't end up with an elderly population and stagnation like Japan.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

And it’s wrong to force those without kids to subsidize other’s kids.

 

[walkenvol]

If it's such a good deal, the second guy or his wife can elect to become a homemaker and reap the same benefit. In any event, homemakers benefit society; our society's dysfunction is in no small measure a consequence and corollary of our paucity of homemakers.

You’re missing the point. Yes it’s a great deal for someone to draw from the system without having contributed. My whole adult life I’ve heard how SS is in trouble. They started taxing SS benefits in 1983 and raised the age from 65 to 67 for full benefits. Many younger folks think they will never receive SS. Many folks believe there will be wealth restrictions to qualify for benefits in the future. Yet we continue to hand out benefits to folks who haven’t contributed financially to the program. Time to end that benefit as today’s families have changed to mostly 2 income earners. The “one incomers”choose to live on less and should plan to do the same in retirement to help keep the system solvent.

 

[Weezy]

And it’s wrong to force those without kids to subsidize other’s kids.

You aren't subsidizing the parents. You are subsidizing the kids. Like we subsidize the elderly, or farmers, or corporations. It's all a decision on where to invest federal dollars.i think the place you are likely to get the most return on investment is education. Maybe not in it's current form with the focus on everything but the actual education.

 

[walkenvol]

You aren't subsidizing the parents. You are subsidizing the kids. Like we subsidize the elderly, or farmers, or corporations. It's all a decision on where to invest federal dollars.i think the place you are likely to get the most return on investment is education. Maybe not in it's current form with the focus on everything but the actual education.

Unfortunately, public education has become just another example of the government stepping in to help then after some years of doing really well they go over the edge and completely screw things up.

 

[Weezy]

We need to start a lot of things from scratch. Reset regulations back to 1960, reduce useless bureaucrats and the like by 90%. Goes for just about every field. Education is not a bad place to put money. Just do it effeciently.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

You aren't subsidizing the parents. You are subsidizing the kids. Like we subsidize the elderly, or farmers, or corporations. It's all a decision on where to invest federal dollars.i think the place you are likely to get the most return on investment is education. Maybe not in it's current form with the focus on everything but the actual education.

The parents are taking the tax beaks. Those without dependent children do not get the tax benefit. Sounds like non-parents are subsidizing parents.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Same thing happens with health insurance. Those with few or no kids pay for the health care of families with lots of kids.

 

[DuckInAPen]

The Empty Playground and the Welfare State | National Review

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Kids are an investment so you don't end up with an elderly population and stagnation like Japan.

It's not MY investment to make.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

deleted

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Same thing happens with health insurance. Those with few or no kids pay for the health care of families with lots of kids.

Add in there the infrastructure... childless people pay for those that tax the system the most.

Tax breaks for having children is just plain wrong and unfair.

 

[southgatevol]

The parents are taking the tax beaks. Those without dependent children do not get the tax benefit. Sounds like non-parents are subsidizing parents.

Not saying I agree or disagree. But by your logic any deduction given to a particular group is subsidized by others, farm deductions, mortgage deductions, etc. It would be a long list. Not everyone receives these deductions. Most choose not to farm, many choose to rent.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Not saying I agree or disagree. But by your logic any deduction given to a particular group is subsidized by others, farm deductions, mortgage deductions, etc. It would be a long list. Not everyone receives these deductions. Most choose not to farm, many choose to rent.

Businesses generally get to deduct EVERYTHING. Certain industries get targeted incentives. Many of those should have had sunset provisions already kicking in.

Farming is a special case. Food is essential to sustain life and farming pretty much has its own set of tax codes. Farming directly benefits everybody. Mortgage deductions are another targeted incentive (although the increase in the standard deduction during the previous administration eliminated much of the itemizing by the middle class).

Individual tax obligations are negatively (inversely) correlated to the number of children the tax payers produce. We don’t need the population to keep expanding. More labor can be imported if needed to sustain our economy.

There are already plenty of people. The childless have been a minority as a voting block. This is a flaw with democracy. The majority are able to take from the minority.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

The Empty Playground and the Welfare State | National Review

So those without offspring should be allowed to keep a bigger portion of their wealth since they will have to hire their health care providers in their old age.

 

[Weezy]

Businesses generally get to deduct EVERYTHING. Certain industries get targeted incentives. Many of those should have had sunset provisions already kicking in.

Farming is a special case. Food is essential to sustain life and farming pretty much has its own set of tax codes. Farming directly benefits everybody. Mortgage deductions are another targeted incentive (although the increase in the standard deduction during the previous administration eliminated much of the itemizing by the middle class).

Individual tax obligations are negatively (inversely) correlated to the number of children the tax payers produce. We don’t need the population to keep expanding. More labor can be imported if needed to sustain our economy.

There are already plenty of people. The childless have been a minority as a voting block. This is a flaw with democracy. The majority are able to take from the minority.

In one post you say food is necessary to sustain life, so is reproducing. In another you say you can just import labor, as if immigration is without cost. What a drab perspective. I think we import enough.

 

[85SugarVol]

Should “tax free retirement accounts” have a reasonable cap on them or should these accounts also be used as tax dodges for wealth beyond a reasonable retirement amount. The back door ROTH was bad legislation IMO and will likely open the door to average folks who put their $5,000-$7,000 in annually having their legit retirement savings taxed down the road. It’s too easy for folks who’ve saved little to nothing to want Uncle Joe to remove tax free status from folks with $2 million and higher accounts.

What in the hell is a “reasonable retirement amount”?

 

[southgatevol]

So those without offspring should be allowed to keep a bigger portion of their wealth since they will have to hire their health care providers in their old age.

But in most cases you could have had children so that was a personal choice. Also if a culture doesn't reproduce it disappears. I have claimed all the deductions I listed and am not ashamed for I definitely have paid my "fair" share. If you would say eliminate ALL deductions and subsidies I would maybe buy the argument.