Guy, you're wrong. More money is syphoned out of the global economy due to money stashing than anything built around our 'progressive' tax code. ~$30 Trillion is held offshore. Read the report from last summer. I have: http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=148 [first link in series: The Price of Offshore Revisited] I mean I get your point and my point is our current system doesn't do what you believe it does for your 100 million income earner. I agree though that a non progressive tax system increases the wealth gap. Thus, my comment and this link.
Even with tax fraud / money stashing the argument is that the rich will still spend less, save more than the poor; whom under this new tax system would end up spending more to receive to less and will widen the wealth gap. The tax system put in place is horrible, yes. Too many loopholes, too many complications. But the answer is not to put in a regressive tax.
means test the older folks for social security. Doesn't make sense for millionaires to draw out of SS when it is meant for the poorer folks. Doesn't solve the problem but it might work for the better.
incorrect. Fairtax comes with a prebate. Anyways fairtax is a sales tax not an income tax some you cant make the claim u are making.
Then quit your job or leave the country. That's life in America. The little guy gets screwed. We all know there won't be anything left for those under 45.
The only reason you "know" this is because you have bought the inaccurate propaganda. SS is completely solvent at present levels through 2037 and two minor tweaks (means testing benefits and raising the payroll tax cap) make it solvent into the next century. Don't buy the BS.
I'm 27 and I used to believe SS would be gone by my retirement, but I no longer believe that. The whole SS isn't going to be there stuff has been going on for decades. Even my dad heard the same think as a young adult, and now at 50 there is a 99.9% chance it is going to be available. Do people really expect politicians to disband SS and leave millions of voters that have paid thousands of dollars into the system without benefits? It would be political suicide. With that said, don't count on SS. Save money. That way when you do get SS, it can be used to cover all your living expenses and you can take your IRA funds and enjoy retirement.
No but many silly conservatives believe in a version of this called "supply side" economics or as Bush I called it "voodoo" economics.
Honest question. I see a push from many in this country to add more tax to the wealthy but don't they already pay more taxes than their counterparts do? Many wealthy people live in multi-million dollar houses, so their taxes will be more there. They frequently drive more expensive vehicles. More taxes there. They tend to travel more so there are taxes there. They tend to buy more so there are taxes there. So on and so on. I may have an ultra-simplistic view and will admit that I don't fully understand taxes or tax law but aren't they already taxed more?
Yes, but not necessarily as a percentage. The wealthiest people in the world achieve much of their income from lower taxed investments (see Buffet and Romney), and that is where the complaints fall in.
Mitt Romney paid less than 15% of his income in taxes in one of the years for which he released his returns. For comparison, the effective tax rates for small businesspeople were 13.3% for sole proprietorships, 17.7% for C corporations, 23.6% for partnerships, and 26.9% for S corporations in 2004 (the year which the linked SBA document studied). According to the CBO... "In 2005, the overall effective tax rate (the ratio of federal taxes to household income) rose to 20.5 percent from 20.1 percent in 2004, reflecting a rise in the effective individual income tax rate and the effective corporate income tax rate." ...and that is just for the effective FEDERAL tax rate. This doesn't include the more regressive taxes, sales and property taxes, that tend to eat up a larger percentage of less well-to-do people's incomes. The question we SHOULD be asking is why our (nominally "progressive") income tax gives the wealthiest among us such dramatically lower tax rates. There is a strong correlation between lowered tax rates and higher deficits, which shouldn't come as a surprise except that so many have bought into the lie told by Republicans that lower tax rates result in higher tax revenues. http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs343tot.pdf http://www.cbo.gov/publication/24725
So what's it worth to you to not have to drive by the old and the poor dying in the streets? Seems like a good value to me. That **** would ruin my day.
It is an unfortunate reality that in order to support the elderly we have to work on a system of trust. One generation pays for the next under the implicit understanding that the following generation will support it. However, we had a weird demographic quirk where we had an incredibly large generation show up that could pay for the elderly and have a huge surplus. Now naturally that birth rate wasn't going to hold so pocketing that surplus and saving it would have been smart. But instead, that generation not only squandered that surplus but proceeded to cut tax revenues left and right in order to gain some short term wealth. Well now that generation is old and is demanding that the current working generation fund all of its retirement obligations even though they did everything they could to bring financial ruin on the current working generation. We're stuck with ****ty choices. Spending on retirees is a rapidly growing part of our spending but we can't cut it because we don't want the elderly to suffer. Even though as a whole, the elderly made stupid policy choices to create this whole mess. The baby boomers really screwed the pooch unfortunately, and we get to pick up the pieces. Ugh..
This. I don't even factor it into my retirement planning. I count it as a black hole that I have to shovel money into, and that I will see no return on. If I am wrong for planning that way then it's a bonus if I get something, it I am right then I will be better prepared. glynch is, as usual, completely FOS. SS is not solvent at all. Benefits will have to be reduced and retirement age increased for it to have any hope of remaining remotely viable. It went into the red in 2010 and will never come out of it without major changes (not just tweaks). It is doomed by demographics, which you cannot change. The baby boomers are, from now to the next decade or so out, going to be leaving the workforce and instead of paying into the system with relatively high wages, they are going to be demanding their benefits - that they have paid for their whole lives. Rick Perry called SS a ponzi scheme in the 2012 election and was ridiculed for it. He was not actually far from the truth. Your FICA taxes go to fund current retirees' checks. Your hypothetical future check will be funded by hypothetical future workers. The number of workers per retiree has been steadily decreasing and is at some point going to get close to 1:1. That is completely, absolutely unsustainable. In 1940 the ration was 159.4 workers for every retiree. That is sustainable, pocket change even. In 2010 it was 2.9 workers for every retiree. That is NOT sustainable. Don't believe me, see for yourself: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html It is mathematically impossible for the system to continue on its current course. But anyone who says that is rewarded with a Mediscaring video of throwing grandma off a cliff. It's utterly pathetic, and the country is totally screwed if we don't find a solution.
Of course, you're wrong, but don't let the facts get in the way... SS trust fund pays for current benefits through 2033... http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/ Relatively minor tweaks can fill the 75 year revenue gap... http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-6494282.html
Eh, no, not wrong. Their projections are based on static analyses, which is why they are continually adjusted, ever downward. I am also sure that I don't have to remind you that the trust fund is essentially $2.7 trillion in IOUs (it's $2.7 trillion in govt securities, which of course have to be paid back), as politicians have actually spent that money already and what is there is really just borrowed. One arm of the government lent another arm of the government money. Did the government actually make any money? http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/2013-social-security-trust-fund-reports-massive-deficits-benefit-cuts http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/mar/12/social-security-trust-fund-solvency-myth/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/ Paul Ryan proposed a few tweaks that would have gradually made the system solvent - without throwing grandma over the cliff, I might add - and I don't think it got a single Democratic vote in the House. It can certainly be fixed, but the Dems simply won't allow any Republican to do the fixing, so it probably won't get fixed. If POTUS were smart he'd actually work with Republicans to get it done, so he could have something to show for his second term, but he is incapable of working with Republicans in good faith. I won't hold my breath. The simple fact of the matter is that retirement age should have been indexed to life expectancy from the get-go. It wasn't, but life expectancy has grown significantly, which means more people on the rolls than intended. But try and raise retirement age, and you will be demagogued as trying to kill seniors. That is, however, the only real long-term fix. You can raise taxes but that has other effects too, and as the article you posted points out it doesn't fix the problem long term.
