Even More Obamacare Follies

#4,101
#4,101
Vol8188 said:
This is why most people don't bother taking the time to respond to you....you're a child. "Libtards are a disease" "damn socialist bastards". Grow the **** up.

The issue with Mitt Romney isn't that he makes money. It's that he pays a much lower tax rate than most because of the way he collects his money. If we are going to tax income, capital gains shouldn't taxed at a lower rate. It should be taxed at rates similiar to those of income.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that YOU were diseased. I said socialism is a disease.

He paid more in taxes this year than you will in your entire lifetime. I probably did too come to think about it. And cap gains taxes don't just hit the uber wealthy Einstein. Retirees and those that invest in things other than bongs that actually earn money by taking a risk.

Cap Gains absolutely SHOULD be taxed at a lower rate because the money used to by the investments have already been taxed once at least. How much is enough for you people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,102
#4,102
Vol8188 said:
This is why most people don't bother taking the time to respond to you....you're a child. "Libtards are a disease" "damn socialist bastards". Grow the **** up.

The issue with Mitt Romney isn't that he makes money. It's that he pays a much lower tax rate than most because of the way he collects his money. If we are going to tax income, capital gains shouldn't taxed at a lower rate. It should be taxed at rates similiar to those of income.
Click to expand...

Bs, you're taxing the same money twice..raise the rate you discourage investment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,103
#4,103
Carl Pickens said:
In fiscal year 2014, spending for Social Security benefits totaled $840 billion, or almost one-quarter of federal spending;

Tax revenues credited to the program totaled $777 billion in fiscal year 2014.

In calendar year 2010, for the first time since the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, annual outlays for the program exceeded annual tax revenues (that is, outlays exceeded totalrevenues excluding interest credited to the trust funds). In 2013, outlays exceeded noninterest income by about 9 percent, and CBO projects that the gap will average about 17 percent of tax revenues over the next decade. As more members of the baby-boom generation retire, outlays will increase relative to the size of the economy, whereas tax revenues will remain at an almost constant share of the economy. As a result, the gap will grow larger in the 2020s and will exceed 30 percent of revenues by the late 2020s.

Do you understand this now?
Click to expand...

Calling it "1/4" of federal spending isn't relevant. Nor should it be looked at in that manner. It's a seperate tax for a seperate purpose. I just wish congress would understand that and stop talking trillions from it.

And the data I posted from the actual SS website itself showed revenue being greater even in 2014. So I'm interested in where your data is coming from.

Also, the gap you mention for 2030+ wouldn't exist if congress would repay the 3 trillion + interest that they owe the American people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,108
#4,108
SpaceCoastVol said:
And just how do you propose they do that?
Click to expand...

Why do you believe it was acceptable for them to do that in the first place? I don't care if they take out of their own salaries and from the Reagan, Greenspan, and LBJ estates. Clinton and Bush are still drawing a government check despite stealing money from countless Americans also, let's take their money also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,110
#4,110
Vol8188 said:
Why do you believe it was acceptable for them to do that in the first place? I don't care if they take out of their own salaries and from the Reagan, Greenspan, and LBJ estates. Clinton and Bush are still drawing a government check despite stealing money from countless Americans also, let's take their money also.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so if someone earns the right (by paying into) a government benefit, if they don't NEED it, they shouldn't get it? Who determines that?

And that wasn't the question I asked you anyway. I was axing you how the congress would repay the (in your words) $3+ trillion + interest.
 
#4,111
#4,111
FLVOL69 said:
The original investment or earnings was taxed as income, why tax again at the same rate ? Seems like you're discouraging success ..
Click to expand...

You're not taxing the original sum.

If you invest 100 and make 5%, only the 5 dollars you made is being taxed. Not the original 100. No one is discouraging success. But a professional trader or investor should not have a lower tax liability on an equal amount of income.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4,112
#4,112
Vol8188 said:
Calling it "1/4" of federal spending isn't relevant. Nor should it be looked at in that manner. It's a seperate tax for a seperate purpose. I just wish congress would understand that and stop talking trillions from it.

And the data I posted from the actual SS website itself showed revenue being greater even in 2014. So I'm interested in where your data is coming from.

Also, the gap you mention for 2030+ wouldn't exist if congress would repay the 3 trillion + interest that they owe the American people.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that!

Demographics aren't looking good for long term solvency at the current tax and pay out rates.

My issue is like many others: I should expect to receive what I paid in plus compounding. SS is a sham. I could plan to retire a few years earlier if I was able to hang onto that coin from the start.

I realize fighting the SS battle is a no-win proposition. It's a lot of money that I'll never see. What surprises me is that, knowing the government has been piss-poor stewards of Americans retirement funds, people line up behind obamacare. It's not going to be any different fellas!!

the government is a faceless entity that doesn't really care about your fate. Only about getting your dollars and filtering it through the machine. They are the definition of "the man".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,113
#4,113
FLVOL69 said:
The original investment or earnings was taxed as income, why tax again at the same rate ? Seems like you're discouraging success ..
Click to expand...

See: Socialism.

Income equality. That's the ticket.

The only thing that is keeping the system afloat right now is that the socialists KNOW there are a lot of people out there that will work hard despite the amounts they steal. There will reach a point where this country will find out why the USSR failed. First hand. I think the first salvo will be when they try to come after 401(k)s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,115
#4,115
SpaceCoastVol said:
I didn't say that YOU were diseased. I said socialism is a disease.

He paid more in taxes this year than you will in your entire lifetime. I probably did too come to think about it. And cap gains taxes don't just hit the uber wealthy Einstein. Retirees and those that invest in things other than bongs that actually earn money by taking a risk.

Cap Gains absolutely SHOULD be taxed at a lower rate because the money used to by the investments have already been taxed once at least. How much is enough for you people?
Click to expand...

No one is talking about taxing the same money twice. If you really believe that, then you clearly must not understand the word "gains".

And yes, a professional investor should have the same tax liability as others making their income. Regardless of how the money was acquired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,116
#4,116
Vol8188 said:
You're not taxing the original sum.

If you invest 100 and make 5%, only the 5 dollars you made is being taxed. Not the original 100. No one is discouraging success. But a professional trader or investor should not have a lower tax liability on an equal amount of income.
Click to expand...

The original hundred has already been taxed at the highest level of income tax, now you risk your hard earned money and you should have to pay the same tax rate as the original hundred dollar investment ? I say no
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,117
#4,117
Gramps said:
I am in agreement with 88 on this one. IMHO, all income earned should be taxed the same rate period.
Click to expand...
So I guess they need to repeal the ROTH plan provisions too then?

I would agree with you and the kid under one condition: Constitutionally amended flat tax of 10% on ALL earnings, and no deductions.
 
#4,121
#4,121
DC_Vol said:
Good luck with that!

Demographics aren't looking good for long term solvency at the current tax and pay out rates.

My issue is like many others: I should expect to receive what I paid in plus compounding. SS is a sham. I could plan to retire a few years earlier if I was able to hang onto that coin from the start.

I realize fighting the SS battle is a no-win proposition. It's a lot of money that I'll never see. What surprises me is that, knowing the government has been piss-poor stewards of Americans retirement funds, people line up behind obamacare. It's not going to be any different fellas!!

the government is a faceless entity that doesn't really care about your fate. Only about getting your dollars and filtering it through the machine. They are the definition of "the man".
Click to expand...

1. I've already stated I believe social security should be 100% related to what you pay in.

2. Because the government has done a ****ty job with SS doesn't mean should end the program itself. The problem isn't with the program, the program actually works. The problem is with the politicians who rob the program blind. Hold them accountable. Pass legislation to protect social security and vote those who oppose it and want to continue robbing it out of office.
 
#4,123
#4,123
Vol8188 said:
Calling it "1/4" of federal spending isn't relevant. Nor should it be looked at in that manner. It's a seperate tax for a seperate purpose. I just wish congress would understand that and stop talking trillions from it.

And the data I posted from the actual SS website itself showed revenue being greater even in 2014. So I'm interested in where your data is coming from.

Also, the gap you mention for 2030+ wouldn't exist if congress would repay the 3 trillion + interest that they owe the American people.
Click to expand...

The CBO..... And ifs and buts were sugar and nuts
 
#4,124
#4,124
FLVOL69 said:
The original hundred has already been taxed at the highest level of income tax, now you risk your hard earned money and you should have to pay the same tax rate as the original hundred dollar investment ? I say no
Click to expand...

Let me ask you this 69.
A professional couple earns $500,000.00. An investor earns $500,000.00. Why should the professional couple have to pay more in taxes than the investor. Both Made the same amount of money.

I am for a flat tax with all income being taxed at the same rate with no deductions or loopholes. That is the only "fair way" to tax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top