Billionaires and Roth IRAs: the case for tax reform

#326
#326
McDad said:
Notions of taxing people who achieve certain levels must be defeated on principle alone. Once you've accepted the premise that government should tax those people above those levels, you've given power for them to eventually set the rates at whatever point it is politically expedient. For every person who thinks the cutoff should be 1B, there can be just as many who think it should be 1M.
Click to expand...
But, but…. We’re only going after the Billionaires. Why are you protecting them???
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and McDad
#328
#328
McDad said:
I know your reply was tongue in cheek. But in all candor, I dont want to be prejudiced, biased, or bigoted against anyone for any reason...including their bank account.
Click to expand...
I was more trying to allude to that it may be “Billionaires” today …. But it won’t be tomorrow…
 
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol and McDad
#331
#331
85SugarVol said:
I was more trying to allude to that it may be “Billionaires” today …. But it won’t be tomorrow…
Click to expand...
Your absolutely right - they are floating the narrative about the billion dollar ROTH as the most extreme example, one that most folks would be fine with taxing because it would never happen to them. Once they get their foot in the door, they will settle on a number much lower than $1 billion.
 
#332
#332
Weezy said:
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.
Click to expand...

People don’t need to reproduce to stay alive. They do need to eat though. You should be able to understand that concept.

We’ll have to import labor anyway. Immigrants are willing to do the worst jobs. Our 18 +/- yo population seems too soft or it is beneath many of them to push brooms, empty trash, flip burgers, etc. Apparently we aren’t importing enough since there are so many jobs not filled (which is ridiculous considering much of the work force has been getting paid the equivalent of $15/hour by the government in unemployment benefits).
 
#333
#333
southgatevol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or culture is disappearing anyway. There are nearly 8 billion people walking around already and the trend is far from being reversed. We don’t need governmental, financial incentives to make more people.
 
#334
#334
walkenvol said:
Your absolutely right - they are floating the narrative about the billion dollar ROTH as the most extreme example, one that most folks would be fine with taxing because it would never happen to them. Once they get their foot in the door, they will settle on a number much lower than $1 billion.
Click to expand...

The original Federal Income Tax rates: 7% for the evil rich fellers. 1% for the commoners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, hog88 and McDad
#335
#335
Thunder Good-Oil said:
People don’t need to reproduce to stay alive. They do need to eat though. You should be able to understand that concept.

We’ll have to import labor anyway. Immigrants are willing to do the worst jobs. Our 18 +/- yo population seems too soft or it is beneath many of them to push brooms, empty trash, flip burgers, etc. Apparently we aren’t importing enough since there are so many jobs not filled (which is ridiculous considering much of the work force has been getting paid the equivalent of $15/hour by the government in unemployment benefits).
Click to expand...
Stop reproducing and human life ceases to exist after the existing generation. If people aren't taking those jobs, then reduce benefits. The safety net is too big.

We are going to need immigration and higher birth rates to sustain economic growth and keep paying the bills.
 
#336
#336
Weezy said:
Stop reproducing and human life ceases to exist after the existing generation. If people aren't taking those jobs, then reduce benefits. The safety net is too big.

We are going to need immigration and higher birth rates to sustain economic growth and keep paying the bills.
Click to expand...

Don’t worry. Africa will add 3 billion (net increase) people over the rest of the century. Their median economic class members will be thrilled to be at even the 5th percentile here. More likely even their 90-95th percentile.

When we have a world population racing to 10 billion, human extinction won’t be predicated by the ladies not popping them out in sufficient quantities.
 
#337
#337
walkenvol said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not missing the point; I just emphatically disagree with it. If the spousal benefit were so advantageous, more couples would choose to avail themselves of it. I see no evidence, however, that it's been an inducement for anyone at all to leave the labor market.

As for the idea that homemakers are free riders in the Social Security system, I submit that the opposite is in fact true. Social Security was designed to be a "pay as you go" system -- there is no "lock box." Benefits for current workers will ultimately be paid by the two generations that follow them. On balance, families with a stay-at-home parent contribute disproportionately to the cost of keeping the system afloat.
 
#339
#339
walkenvol said:
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.
Click to expand...
SS works because it’s the biggest ponzi scheme going. Imagine if you could take 12% of your income and invest it. You’d have millions by 65. Not only that but you’d have a transferable asset that could create generational wealth. Instead Uncle Sam gives you maybe $25k for ten years and if you croak your wife can have 80% of your benefit if she forfeits hers. When she dies the jig is up. If you’re middle class you’ll never break even or come ahead on SS unless you live to be 120.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and InVOLuntary
#341
#341
SpaceCoastVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

What would be a good idea to incentivize traditional families (one man/one woman) to have children? Demographics play an important part in the stability of a nation.
 
#342
#342
Rasputin_Vol said:
What would be a good idea to incentivize traditional families (one man/one woman) to have children? Demographics play an important part in the stability of a nation.
Click to expand...

It would be a good idea to stop using the FIT system as a tool to shape behavior. The reason to have an income tax is to generate revenue to run a government and not to redistribute wealth or do other social engineering. Your one man/one woman model has been deconstructed… and you were awfully hard on the Beaver last night, Ward.
 
#343
#343
Thunder Good-Oil said:
It would be a good idea to stop using the FIT system as a tool to shape behavior. The reason to have an income tax is to generate revenue to run a government and not to redistribute wealth or do other social engineering. Your one man/one woman model has been deconstructed… and you were awfully hard on the Beaver last night, Ward.
Click to expand...

Now this portion of the argument I can buy. Well, except I doubt Ward was ever THAT hard on the Beaver.
 
#344
#344
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Don’t worry. Africa will add 3 billion (net increase) people over the rest of the century. Their median economic class members will be thrilled to be at even the 5th percentile here. More likely even their 90-95th percentile.

When we have a world population racing to 10 billion, human extinction won’t be predicated by the ladies not popping them out in sufficient quantities.
Click to expand...
America already tried importing cheap African labor to sustain an industry.
 
#345
#345
Thunder Good-Oil said:
People don’t need to reproduce to stay alive. They do need to eat though. You should be able to understand that concept.

We’ll have to import labor anyway. Immigrants are willing to do the worst jobs. Our 18 +/- yo population seems too soft or it is beneath many of them to push brooms, empty trash, flip burgers, etc. Apparently we aren’t importing enough since there are so many jobs not filled (which is ridiculous considering much of the work force has been getting paid the equivalent of $15/hour by the government in unemployment benefits).
Click to expand...
Try $22.50/hr. $300 from the state and $600 from the feds. That's $900/week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder Good-Oil
#346
#346
lawgator1 said:
https://www.propublica.org/article/...s-into-a-5-billion-dollar-tax-free-piggy-bank


This should make every American very angry. This is exactly what's wrong with our tax system. I am of the opinion it should no longer be run by Congress. As long as they themselves get insider deals, and as long as they are dependent on the generosity of those that do, the Congress cannot be trusted with the power to make the rules on taxation.

I'm open to alternatives. A constitutional amendment to tax all income, regardless of source, at a flat 10 %? No exemptions, deductions, no tricks or dodges. Or how about a pro rata share of the country's bills every year, plus a 30 year plan to pay off the debt, based on income? Would force Congress to be careful in its spending because taxes rise or fall every year based on what they outlay.

Bottom line is that the tax system is currently manipulated by those with enormous wealth so as to concentrate wealth even further and it needs to end.
Click to expand...


Look there! We can finally agree on something! A flat tax or national consumption (sales tax) is the only way to go. No games, no tricks, no loopholes. Burn the current tax code that favors some over others and everyone pay their fair share. You make 100K a year then you pay 10K in taxes. You make 10 million a year then you pay 1 million in taxes. Simple as a pimple.
 
#347
#347
norrislakevol said:
Look there! We can finally agree on something! A flat tax or national consumption (sales tax) is the only way to go. No games, no tricks, no loopholes. Burn the current tax code that favors some over others and everyone pay their fair share. You make 100K a year then you pay 10K in taxes. You make 10 million a year then you pay 1 million in taxes. Simple as a pimple.
Click to expand...
We will not ever move to a flat percentage or a consumption tax. Politicians would need to cede power for that to happen. For grins and giggles, if we move to a flat percentage it would likely be 20% instead of 10%. Tax revenues for the last 70+ years hover around 20% of GDP regardless of what the actual rates are. Also, we would have to define "income". Is that payroll? Is it capital gains; realized or unrealized? Inheritance?
 
#348
#348
norrislakevol said:
Look there! We can finally agree on something! A flat tax or national consumption (sales tax) is the only way to go. No games, no tricks, no loopholes. Burn the current tax code that favors some over others and everyone pay their fair share. You make 100K a year then you pay 10K in taxes. You make 10 million a year then you pay 1 million in taxes. Simple as a pimple.
Click to expand...


Key is all income treated the same. No breaks for source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top