No reason why FICA taxes shouldn't be considered right along with income taxes. It is another tax on income. And a very regressive tax paid only on earned (not unearned) income below the 100k or so threshold.
Agreed. If you want to make the rich pay more than the not so rich then don't cap the FICA taxes but require it for all earnings, and then limit soc sec benefits to those whose income is less than 10times the poverty level, thus the very wealthy who have done well for themselves and saved and prepared for their retirement won't be able to take money away from those poor people who obviously have earned it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
No reason why FICA taxes shouldn't be considered right along with income taxes. It is another tax on income. And a very regressive tax paid only on earned (not unearned) income below the 100k or so threshold.
Agreed. If you want to make the rich pay more than the not so rich then don't cap the FICA taxes but require it for all earnings, and then limit soc sec benefits to those whose income is less than 10times the poverty level, thus the very wealthy who have done well for themselves and saved and prepared for their retirement won't be able to take money away from those poor people who obviously have earned it.
Agreed. If you want to make the rich pay more than the not so rich then don't cap the FICA taxes but require it for all earnings, and then limit soc sec benefits to those whose income is less than 10times the poverty level, thus the very wealthy who have done well for themselves and saved and prepared for their retirement won't be able to take money away from those poor people who obviously have earned it.
I agree with lifting the cap and FICA taxing all earnings. The second part, I'm not sure how that would work. I mean, by the time you collect SS, you're usually already retired and so tying that to income seems like it wouldn't work. I guess you could tie it to savings or retirement account assets, but then I wonder if that would be an incentive not to save or to spend it before collecting SS - not a good thing.
0
Quote Originally Posted by shsbronc54:
Agreed. If you want to make the rich pay more than the not so rich then don't cap the FICA taxes but require it for all earnings, and then limit soc sec benefits to those whose income is less than 10times the poverty level, thus the very wealthy who have done well for themselves and saved and prepared for their retirement won't be able to take money away from those poor people who obviously have earned it.
I agree with lifting the cap and FICA taxing all earnings. The second part, I'm not sure how that would work. I mean, by the time you collect SS, you're usually already retired and so tying that to income seems like it wouldn't work. I guess you could tie it to savings or retirement account assets, but then I wonder if that would be an incentive not to save or to spend it before collecting SS - not a good thing.
depeche - I was thinking of earings from 401k savings or other investments, ie rentals, mutual funds, business income etc. for the 10 times equation. This would apply to taxable income only so any roth account disbursements would not be included in the formula.
Once again this would hit the uber wealthy that many on here like to target for not paying their fair share.
Wall - I will read the article you have linked and respond.
0
depeche - I was thinking of earings from 401k savings or other investments, ie rentals, mutual funds, business income etc. for the 10 times equation. This would apply to taxable income only so any roth account disbursements would not be included in the formula.
Once again this would hit the uber wealthy that many on here like to target for not paying their fair share.
Wall - I will read the article you have linked and respond.
Neither House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, nor Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has taken a firm stand on
whether to extend the one-year tax cut.
Most GOP presidential candidates also are treading lightly.
Um, the facts don match you're headline.
We're all shocked by this development.
0
Neither House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, nor Senate
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has taken a firm stand on
whether to extend the one-year tax cut.
Most GOP presidential candidates also are treading lightly.
How about the republicans not raise taxes on the rich, but instead end all the loopholes and get the rich to actually pay some taxes. If the govt would just close the loopholes on the corporations, our country would have more money coming in then what we would know what to do it with it. But this will never be done, because the politicians fill their pockets up with cash from these very corporations.
.... Very true.. As a Repub, I can agree with that. Loopholes need to be closed off entirely.
There is no reason why large corporations should pay less than their fair share. They shouldn't benefit only because they have the capacity to hire more tax specialists, attorneys, and find these loopholes in the tax code.
Reduce the corporate tax rate for all, and close all loopholes that favor specifically the multi-cap companies.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
How about the republicans not raise taxes on the rich, but instead end all the loopholes and get the rich to actually pay some taxes. If the govt would just close the loopholes on the corporations, our country would have more money coming in then what we would know what to do it with it. But this will never be done, because the politicians fill their pockets up with cash from these very corporations.
.... Very true.. As a Repub, I can agree with that. Loopholes need to be closed off entirely.
There is no reason why large corporations should pay less than their fair share. They shouldn't benefit only because they have the capacity to hire more tax specialists, attorneys, and find these loopholes in the tax code.
Reduce the corporate tax rate for all, and close all loopholes that favor specifically the multi-cap companies.
And Warren Buffet wants to raise income taxes, but his company is fighting the IRS tooth & nail:
According to Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report — see Note 15 on
pp. 54-56 — the company has been in a years-long dispute over its
federal tax bills.
According to the report, “We anticipate that we will resolve all
adjustments proposed by the IRS for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at
the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has
completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax
returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are
currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS
is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns
for the 2007 through 2009 tax years.”
Americans for Limited Government researcher Richard McCarty, who was
alerted to the controversy by a federal government lawyer, said, “The
company has been short-changing the tax collection agency for much of
the past decade. Mr. Buffett’s company has not fully settled its tax
bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says he’d happily pay more. Except the
IRS has apparently been asking him to pay more going on nine years.”
0
And Warren Buffet wants to raise income taxes, but his company is fighting the IRS tooth & nail:
According to Berkshire Hathaway’s own annual report — see Note 15 on
pp. 54-56 — the company has been in a years-long dispute over its
federal tax bills.
According to the report, “We anticipate that we will resolve all
adjustments proposed by the IRS for the 2002 through 2004 tax years at
the IRS Appeals Division within the next 12 months. The IRS has
completed its examination of our consolidated U.S. federal income tax
returns for the 2005 and 2006 tax years and the proposed adjustments are
currently being reviewed by the IRS Appeals Division process. The IRS
is currently auditing our consolidated U.S. federal income tax returns
for the 2007 through 2009 tax years.”
Americans for Limited Government researcher Richard McCarty, who was
alerted to the controversy by a federal government lawyer, said, “The
company has been short-changing the tax collection agency for much of
the past decade. Mr. Buffett’s company has not fully settled its tax
bills from 2002-2009. Yet he says he’d happily pay more. Except the
IRS has apparently been asking him to pay more going on nine years.”
Notice how there's not a single Covers Republican/Tea Party member who is defending what the GOP is trying to do here.
They are all shirking the issue with platitudes like "work harder" and "go to night school", statements beyond fucking asinine in an economy with virtually no growth for new entrants and the current unemployed and a current unemployment rate of 9% (which in reality is 18%+).
Now back to the OP. The GOP wants to let the payroll taxes expire and held this country by its withered testicles right to a debt default because they WOULD NOT compromise on letting the tax cuts for the rich expire.
I want a single middle-class REPUBLICAN on this site to defend the constant fucking of the middle-class majority by your own party (with the proof right here). JUST ONE....!!!
0
Notice how there's not a single Covers Republican/Tea Party member who is defending what the GOP is trying to do here.
They are all shirking the issue with platitudes like "work harder" and "go to night school", statements beyond fucking asinine in an economy with virtually no growth for new entrants and the current unemployed and a current unemployment rate of 9% (which in reality is 18%+).
Now back to the OP. The GOP wants to let the payroll taxes expire and held this country by its withered testicles right to a debt default because they WOULD NOT compromise on letting the tax cuts for the rich expire.
I want a single middle-class REPUBLICAN on this site to defend the constant fucking of the middle-class majority by your own party (with the proof right here). JUST ONE....!!!
I want a single middle-class REPUBLICAN on this site to defend the
constant fucking of the middle-class majority by your own party (with
the proof right here). JUST ONE....!!!
I want you to learn how to read.
0
The GOP wants to let the payroll taxes expire
Something you have no proof of.
I want a single middle-class REPUBLICAN on this site to defend the
constant fucking of the middle-class majority by your own party (with
the proof right here). JUST ONE....!!!
Notice how there's not a single Covers Republican/Tea Party member who is defending what the GOP is trying to do here.
Notice that no Republican is on record saying they want the payroll tax to increase.
Notice you can't notice that.
I didn't notice it because it's not true.
(CNN) – Two top Republican lawmakers said Wednesday they don't support extending a payroll tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy -an idea the White House is weighing– because they don't believe it helped create jobs and that money is needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who both hold GOP leadership positions, told reporters that the current high unemployment rate is proof that short-term stimulus programs, like the payroll tax reduction, don't work.
"I don't sense how this move will install the confidence that small businesses in east Texas and Fortune 50 companies are going to need to take care of the Obama employment gap," Hensarling said.
"We don't need short term gestures, we need long term strategies that build into our system simpler taxes, lower taxes, fewer mandates, lower costs, lower energy costs, more certainty," Alexander said.
Furthermore, the fact that almost all Republican members of Congress have stayed mute on the issue, while adamantly fighting to preserve the tax cut extensions for the rich, implies they want to do nothing BUT let it expire (which is in effect, a tax increase).
So now that 14daroad has been made as relevant as a used Kleenex, I still want one middle-class covers member, who affiliates themselves with the Republican party or Tea Party, and there are plenty, defend the expiration of the payroll taxes along with your party, all in the face of the ballyhoo and bluster to disallow the expiration of tax cuts for the rich during the deficit ceiling compromise.
Not 100
Not 50
Not a dozen
Just single covers member...Just one...
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Notice how there's not a single Covers Republican/Tea Party member who is defending what the GOP is trying to do here.
Notice that no Republican is on record saying they want the payroll tax to increase.
Notice you can't notice that.
I didn't notice it because it's not true.
(CNN) – Two top Republican lawmakers said Wednesday they don't support extending a payroll tax cut as a way to stimulate the economy -an idea the White House is weighing– because they don't believe it helped create jobs and that money is needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, who both hold GOP leadership positions, told reporters that the current high unemployment rate is proof that short-term stimulus programs, like the payroll tax reduction, don't work.
"I don't sense how this move will install the confidence that small businesses in east Texas and Fortune 50 companies are going to need to take care of the Obama employment gap," Hensarling said.
"We don't need short term gestures, we need long term strategies that build into our system simpler taxes, lower taxes, fewer mandates, lower costs, lower energy costs, more certainty," Alexander said.
Furthermore, the fact that almost all Republican members of Congress have stayed mute on the issue, while adamantly fighting to preserve the tax cut extensions for the rich, implies they want to do nothing BUT let it expire (which is in effect, a tax increase).
So now that 14daroad has been made as relevant as a used Kleenex, I still want one middle-class covers member, who affiliates themselves with the Republican party or Tea Party, and there are plenty, defend the expiration of the payroll taxes along with your party, all in the face of the ballyhoo and bluster to disallow the expiration of tax cuts for the rich during the deficit ceiling compromise.
The statement where "the GOP" says "the payroll tax should increase" is where _____ again?
You do understand that they do not have to say anything to get the desired effect right? All they have to do is nothing and the payroll tax holiday expires at the year. Their silence is enough. Here's what is actually going to happen. They might agree to extend the payroll tax holiday to employees, IF the payroll tax is lowered (or probably eliminated) for the employers. Of course, the reduction in revenue will make the deficit worse, so we will have to cut Social Security and Medicare to make up for it.
Spin away.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
I didn't notice it because it's not true
The statement where "the GOP" says "the payroll tax should increase" is where _____ again?
You do understand that they do not have to say anything to get the desired effect right? All they have to do is nothing and the payroll tax holiday expires at the year. Their silence is enough. Here's what is actually going to happen. They might agree to extend the payroll tax holiday to employees, IF the payroll tax is lowered (or probably eliminated) for the employers. Of course, the reduction in revenue will make the deficit worse, so we will have to cut Social Security and Medicare to make up for it.
Of course, the reduction in revenue will make the deficit worse, so we
will have to cut Social Security and Medicare to make up for it.
Social Security and Medicare both take in less money than they spend so cuts need to take place now.
You do understand that they do not have to say anything to get the desired effect right?
Um, ok, but I'm just looking for proof they want it to expire. So far only innuendo has been given.
What I find even more comical is that those bashing Republicans are calling for the payroll tax cap to be eliminated which will raise taxes on, you guessed it, middle class earners.
0
Of course, the reduction in revenue will make the deficit worse, so we
will have to cut Social Security and Medicare to make up for it.
Social Security and Medicare both take in less money than they spend so cuts need to take place now.
You do understand that they do not have to say anything to get the desired effect right?
Um, ok, but I'm just looking for proof they want it to expire. So far only innuendo has been given.
What I find even more comical is that those bashing Republicans are calling for the payroll tax cap to be eliminated which will raise taxes on, you guessed it, middle class earners.
The only real approach I agree with right now is the loophole problem. The fact is, people that earn more money, as a group, have maneuverability when it comes to navigating a financial issue. An 80 year old that can't afford food, shelter, and pills at the same time has NO FLEXIBILITY.
You can't just tell everyone to go to night school in a country that is aging, with a Boomer population that is more than twice the size of Gen X & Y COMBINED.
We have to get a bit more socialist...it's a very dirty word, and it's unsexy, but the world ins't just when only 2% can truly afford to live in it.
Now I'm not talking socialism here, not at all, but what I'm saying, without digging too deep into specifics, is that the very people that can do something about change tends to be the most resistant to it, making those that are truly helpless, not just lazy, completely doomed to their respective fates.
The worst part about it, is that a lot of the reason the majority of Americans can't do much about their situation is because they actually listened to what the greedy leaders of their country told them. They said, stay loyal to your jobs, put your money into things you can't afford, and we will back you all the way.
Now, we have a situation where the average person paid $130,000 into Medicaid but is using $350,000 worth of coverage.
It just doesn't work.
0
The only real approach I agree with right now is the loophole problem. The fact is, people that earn more money, as a group, have maneuverability when it comes to navigating a financial issue. An 80 year old that can't afford food, shelter, and pills at the same time has NO FLEXIBILITY.
You can't just tell everyone to go to night school in a country that is aging, with a Boomer population that is more than twice the size of Gen X & Y COMBINED.
We have to get a bit more socialist...it's a very dirty word, and it's unsexy, but the world ins't just when only 2% can truly afford to live in it.
Now I'm not talking socialism here, not at all, but what I'm saying, without digging too deep into specifics, is that the very people that can do something about change tends to be the most resistant to it, making those that are truly helpless, not just lazy, completely doomed to their respective fates.
The worst part about it, is that a lot of the reason the majority of Americans can't do much about their situation is because they actually listened to what the greedy leaders of their country told them. They said, stay loyal to your jobs, put your money into things you can't afford, and we will back you all the way.
Now, we have a situation where the average person paid $130,000 into Medicaid but is using $350,000 worth of coverage.
Typical DUMBacrat... expecting the rich and hard working to carry the rest of the country on their back. Welfare and unemployment should be abolished all together. It just encourages slackers and underachievers. I could go out and find 15 different jobs paying within the vicinity of 12-20 dollars an hour in a day. People just aren't willing to work unless it is exactly what they want and exactly how much they want. These people should not get free rides.
This is so true. I know several of my college buddies w/ 4yr degrees who are sitting on their ass taking govt cheese, because they can't find that "home-run" job they want. So they rather not work until the perfect job opportunity comes to them on a silver fucking platter. I know not everyone on unemployment acts like this, but 75% of the people I know do, it's pathetic.
0
Quote Originally Posted by woopdurritis:
Typical DUMBacrat... expecting the rich and hard working to carry the rest of the country on their back. Welfare and unemployment should be abolished all together. It just encourages slackers and underachievers. I could go out and find 15 different jobs paying within the vicinity of 12-20 dollars an hour in a day. People just aren't willing to work unless it is exactly what they want and exactly how much they want. These people should not get free rides.
This is so true. I know several of my college buddies w/ 4yr degrees who are sitting on their ass taking govt cheese, because they can't find that "home-run" job they want. So they rather not work until the perfect job opportunity comes to them on a silver fucking platter. I know not everyone on unemployment acts like this, but 75% of the people I know do, it's pathetic.
Of course, the reduction in revenue will make the deficit worse, so we
will have to cut Social Security and Medicare to make up for it.
Social Security and Medicare both take in less money than they spend so cuts need to take place now.
You do understand that they do not have to say anything to get the desired effect right?
Um, ok, but I'm just looking for proof they want it to expire. So far only innuendo has been given.
What I find even more comical is that those bashing Republicans are calling for the payroll tax cap to be eliminated which will raise taxes on, you guessed it, middle class earners.
Those bashing Republicans are calling for the payroll tax cap to be eliminated? What the hell are you talking about?
The WHOLE POINT of the payroll tax cut extension is a Democratic platform that would extend a tax cut from expiring to the middle class!
REPUBLICANS want it to expire which will jointly screw the middle-class worker and widen the income inequity gap with the rich. That was the WHOLE POINT of post #38.
Also, Republican silence on this issue, outside of Lamar Smith and Rep. Hensarling as cited, speaks volumes. Do you believe the GOP will suddenly come out of the woodwork at 11:59PM the day before the tax cuts expire and vote to save the extension? Doing and saying nothing is politically feasible and very telling with regards to their expiration!
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Of course, the reduction in revenue will make the deficit worse, so we
will have to cut Social Security and Medicare to make up for it.
Social Security and Medicare both take in less money than they spend so cuts need to take place now.
You do understand that they do not have to say anything to get the desired effect right?
Um, ok, but I'm just looking for proof they want it to expire. So far only innuendo has been given.
What I find even more comical is that those bashing Republicans are calling for the payroll tax cap to be eliminated which will raise taxes on, you guessed it, middle class earners.
Those bashing Republicans are calling for the payroll tax cap to be eliminated? What the hell are you talking about?
The WHOLE POINT of the payroll tax cut extension is a Democratic platform that would extend a tax cut from expiring to the middle class!
REPUBLICANS want it to expire which will jointly screw the middle-class worker and widen the income inequity gap with the rich. That was the WHOLE POINT of post #38.
Also, Republican silence on this issue, outside of Lamar Smith and Rep. Hensarling as cited, speaks volumes. Do you believe the GOP will suddenly come out of the woodwork at 11:59PM the day before the tax cuts expire and vote to save the extension? Doing and saying nothing is politically feasible and very telling with regards to their expiration!
Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut
extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep
spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax
designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and
stature.
0
REPUBLICANS want it to expire
Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut
extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep
spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax
designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and
stature.
The only real approach I agree with right now is the loophole problem. The fact is, people that earn more money, as a group, have maneuverability when it comes to navigating a financial issue. An 80 year old that can't afford food, shelter, and pills at the same time has NO FLEXIBILITY.
You can't just tell everyone to go to night school in a country that is aging, with a Boomer population that is more than twice the size of Gen X & Y COMBINED.
We have to get a bit more socialist...it's a very dirty word, and it's unsexy, but the world ins't just when only 2% can truly afford to live in it.
Now I'm not talking socialism here, not at all, but what I'm saying, without digging too deep into specifics, is that the very people that can do something about change tends to be the most resistant to it, making those that are truly helpless, not just lazy, completely doomed to their respective fates.
The worst part about it, is that a lot of the reason the majority of Americans can't do much about their situation is because they actually listened to what the greedy leaders of their country told them. They said, stay loyal to your jobs, put your money into things you can't afford, and we will back you all the way.
Now, we have a situation where the average person paid $130,000 into Medicaid but is using $350,000 worth of coverage.
It just doesn't work.
That is exactly correct, but the better question is WHY did this happen?
I say the issue is of forecasting and the fact that politicians do not get elected by properly raising pay-in levels as they should have for the last three plus decades, nor do politicians get elected by putting the screws down on hospitals, pharma companies and lawyers.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Vectorfsm:
The only real approach I agree with right now is the loophole problem. The fact is, people that earn more money, as a group, have maneuverability when it comes to navigating a financial issue. An 80 year old that can't afford food, shelter, and pills at the same time has NO FLEXIBILITY.
You can't just tell everyone to go to night school in a country that is aging, with a Boomer population that is more than twice the size of Gen X & Y COMBINED.
We have to get a bit more socialist...it's a very dirty word, and it's unsexy, but the world ins't just when only 2% can truly afford to live in it.
Now I'm not talking socialism here, not at all, but what I'm saying, without digging too deep into specifics, is that the very people that can do something about change tends to be the most resistant to it, making those that are truly helpless, not just lazy, completely doomed to their respective fates.
The worst part about it, is that a lot of the reason the majority of Americans can't do much about their situation is because they actually listened to what the greedy leaders of their country told them. They said, stay loyal to your jobs, put your money into things you can't afford, and we will back you all the way.
Now, we have a situation where the average person paid $130,000 into Medicaid but is using $350,000 worth of coverage.
It just doesn't work.
That is exactly correct, but the better question is WHY did this happen?
I say the issue is of forecasting and the fact that politicians do not get elected by properly raising pay-in levels as they should have for the last three plus decades, nor do politicians get elected by putting the screws down on hospitals, pharma companies and lawyers.
Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut
extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep
spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax
designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and
stature.
More diversion...
I am actually against extending them as well for that very reason but Democrats are irrelevant here. This is a PARTY PLATFORM for Republicans. The lunatic fringe that is the Tea party even created the acronym TEA (Taxed Enough Already) to emphasize there should be NO TAX INCREASES, for the rich only that is. The very FIRST opportunity they could allow the middle class to benefit by preventing a tax increase, they buried their heads in the sand after putting masking tape on their mouths.
Still, there is not a single middle-class Republican/Tea Party covers member who has come forward to criticize the party they affiliate with on this issue, an issue that defines everything they preach relentlessly, and bash Democrats for. It's mind-boggling.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
REPUBLICANS want it to expire
Many Democrats also are ambivalent about Obama's proposed tax cut
extension. They are more focused on protecting social programs from deep
spending cuts. Some worry that a multiyear reduction in the tax
designated for Social Security could undermine that program's health and
stature.
More diversion...
I am actually against extending them as well for that very reason but Democrats are irrelevant here. This is a PARTY PLATFORM for Republicans. The lunatic fringe that is the Tea party even created the acronym TEA (Taxed Enough Already) to emphasize there should be NO TAX INCREASES, for the rich only that is. The very FIRST opportunity they could allow the middle class to benefit by preventing a tax increase, they buried their heads in the sand after putting masking tape on their mouths.
Still, there is not a single middle-class Republican/Tea Party covers member who has come forward to criticize the party they affiliate with on this issue, an issue that defines everything they preach relentlessly, and bash Democrats for. It's mind-boggling.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
