How will Trump’s tax INCREASE affect you?

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

 

I think that the focus should be on fixing and expanding them. The GOP approach is to cut funding for programs that help Americans. Whatever the problem we are facing, the solution is always: cut programs for working and average Americans and reduce taxes on corporations and the rich. 

 

Economy is bad? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

Economy is good? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

Inflation? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

War? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

Stubbed my toe? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

 

The approach to everything is to ensure that the rich and powerful have a larger share of the pie at the expense of the working schlubs. 

Nice try.....but the tax rate that I pay has nothing to do with your personal success or prosperity. I truly wish you nothing but the best, but blaming me (or my company)  for your financial problems is nothing short of ridiculous. 

[Chef Jim]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think that the focus should be on fixing and expanding them. The GOP approach is to cut funding for programs that help Americans. Whatever the problem we are facing, the solution is always: cut programs for working and average Americans and reduce taxes on corporations and the rich. 

 

Economy is bad? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

Economy is good? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

Inflation? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

War? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

Stubbed my toe? Cut programs for Americans, reduce taxes for the rich and corporations.

 

The approach to everything is to ensure that the rich and powerful have a larger share of the pie at the expense of the working schlubs. 

Fixing?  How?

Expanding?  In what way?

 

Are you for or against means testing and why? 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Nice try.....but the tax rate that I pay has nothing to do with your personal success or prosperity. I truly wish you nothing but the best, but blaming me (or my company)  for your financial problems is nothing short of ridiculous. 

 

...what are you talking about? Are you high?

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

 

...what are you talking about? Are you high?

I'm just reacting to you....

 

"The approach to everything is to ensure that the rich and powerful have a larger share of the pie at the expense of the working schlubs. "

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

Fixing?  How?

Expanding?  In what way?

 

Are you for or against means testing and why? 

 

As far as Medicare is concerned, I would roll Medicare and Medicaid into one program to reduce administrative costs (which is something like 25% of healthcare costs). You can keep or modify the eligibility and specifics of the programs, but having multiple healthcare administrations seems like a waste.

 

For social security, I'd raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap. I think today it only taxes the first $150k of salaries. So if you make more than that, you have a lower effective SS payroll tax than someone making less. Makes very little sense to me. Raising or eliminating the cap would increase the money going into the program. You could also look at other revenue streams such as a wealth tax, but honestly we should scale income tax brackets similarly to how we had them in the post-war boom. Also we should look at how the super wealthy avoid taxes by taking out loans against their assets for cash instead of having a W-2 wage that would be taxed.

 

I would like to avoid things like reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age. These are programs that people paid into their whole lives and they should be able to rely on them. 

 

As far as means testing, it depends on how it's done, but if we can do it easily and accurately (which is not always a guarantee), then I'm good with it.

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

As far as Medicare is concerned, I would roll Medicare and Medicaid into one program to reduce administrative costs (which is something like 25% of healthcare costs). You can keep or modify the eligibility and specifics of the programs, but having multiple healthcare administrations seems like a waste.

 

For social security, I'd raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap. I think today it only taxes the first $150k of salaries. So if you make more than that, you have a lower effective SS payroll tax than someone making less. Makes very little sense to me. Raising or eliminating the cap would increase the money going into the program. You could also look at other revenue streams such as a wealth tax, but honestly we should scale income tax brackets similarly to how we had them in the post-war boom. Also we should look at how the super wealthy avoid taxes by taking out loans against their assets for cash instead of having a W-2 wage that would be taxed.

 

I would like to avoid things like reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age. These are programs that people paid into their whole lives and they should be able to rely on them. 

 

As far as means testing, it depends on how it's done, but if we can do it easily and accurately (which is not always a guarantee), then I'm good with it.

I agree with a bunch of that....but it sounds a little bit like you're asking for Social Security to be funded by Income Tax. 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I agree with a bunch of that....but it sounds a little bit like you're asking for Social Security to be funded by Income Tax. 

 

Partially, yes. I think it's a valuable program and something that people have earned. If a payroll tax is not sufficient then I think we should look at additional revenue streams as opposed to reducing eligibility or benefits.

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

As far as Medicare is concerned, I would roll Medicare and Medicaid into one program to reduce administrative costs (which is something like 25% of healthcare costs). You can keep or modify the eligibility and specifics of the programs, but having multiple healthcare administrations seems like a waste.

 

For social security, I'd raise or eliminate the payroll tax cap. I think today it only taxes the first $150k of salaries. So if you make more than that, you have a lower effective SS payroll tax than someone making less. Makes very little sense to me. Raising or eliminating the cap would increase the money going into the program. You could also look at other revenue streams such as a wealth tax, but honestly we should scale income tax brackets similarly to how we had them in the post-war boom. Also we should look at how the super wealthy avoid taxes by taking out loans against their assets for cash instead of having a W-2 wage that would be taxed.

 

I would like to avoid things like reducing benefits or raising the eligibility age. These are programs that people paid into their whole lives and they should be able to rely on them. 

 

As far as means testing, it depends on how it's done, but if we can do it easily and accurately (which is not always a guarantee), then I'm good with it.

I agree with some of these but I disagree with eliminating the cap on income for SS tax.  The benefit is caped so too should the tax.  
 

The eligibility age MUST be increased.  I love the idea of tying it to life expectancy. The biggest challenge to retirement is living too long and this is also the threat to SS

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Partially, yes. I think it's a valuable program and something that people have earned. If a payroll tax is not sufficient then I think we should look at additional revenue streams as opposed to reducing eligibility or benefits.

Why not both?   Why is it always more tax but never cutting the expense side of the balance sheet? 

[ChiGoose]

37 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Why not both?   Why is it always more tax but never cutting the expense side of the balance sheet? 

 

This is a fair question, and with other programs, I'd probably more readily agree to cuts.

 

But I think that, after a life of hard work, Americans should be able to retire comfortably. Many will be able to do so because of the wealth they've accumulated (which is where means-testing could scale their SS benefits) but there are plenty of people who never really "made it" and don't have that cushion. I don't think they should still have to work until the day they die just because they weren't successful when they were younger.

 

I'm not sure if scaling the benefits through means-testing counts as "cuts" but either way, I think that's a good discussion point around reducing the costs of the program.

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

This is a fair question, and with other programs, I'd probably more readily agree to cuts.

 

But I think that, after a life of hard work, Americans should be able to retire comfortably. Many will be able to do so because of the wealth they've accumulated (which is where means-testing could scale their SS benefits) but there are plenty of people who never really "made it" and don't have that cushion. I don't think they should still have to work until the day they die just because they weren't successful when they were younger.

 

I'm not sure if scaling the benefits through means-testing counts as "cuts" but either way, I think that's a good discussion point around reducing the costs of the program.

 

I am 100% against means testing for SS benefits.  You've put into the system you should be able to reap the benefits.  

 

Retire comfortably is a relative concept.  If you mean never starving to death or living on the street SS alone will likely provide that.  But who considers that comfortable?  In order to retire with what most people would consider a comfortable lifestyle will require some sort of savings outside of SS (401k/IRA etc).  Just $50 a month will create a potential additional $1k per month adding 30-50% or more income to SS. 

 

Regarding reducing the cost of the program I have mentioned some ideas in another thread.

 

1.  Eliminate the 62 option

2.  Increase FRA to 68 or older

3.  Increase last available option to 72 or older

4.  Reduce the 8% annual increase from FRA to last available option

5.  Scale FRA and oldest option to life expectancy

6.  Increase financial education in schools and beyond.  Knowledge is power

7.  Incentivize retirement savings plans.  Maybe increase the deduction for 401k/IRA.  Instead of dollar for dollar pre tax deduction maybe $1.5 deduction for every $1 contributed?  

 

The last two won't cut the costs but will help people achieve that comfortable retirement.  There are a lot of creative ways to help keep the system solvent as well as incentivize people to save. 

[SoCal Deek]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Partially, yes. I think it's a valuable program and something that people have earned. If a payroll tax is not sufficient then I think we should look at additional revenue streams as opposed to reducing eligibility or benefits.

Is it a valuable program? I guess. But it was conceived as a self funding program. If it was poorly constructed, or poorly run/adjusted over time, that doesn’t mean you dip into another well for what you clearly believe is a bucket of untapped tax money. That’s not how social security was ever supposed to work. 

[Doc]

5 hours ago, Bandito said:

Did you type this with your mask on? Red Tsunami is coming. Better find your safe space and start to transition to another gender!

 

Better yet, identify as someone who never supported the Dems. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

It’s too bad all the people who feel the government should be collecting more tax revenue aren’t paying extra taxes themselves voluntarily. No laws against overpaying your taxes.  Try living up to your philanthropic virtues with your own money first. 

 

[Chef Jim]

5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

It’s too bad all the people who feel the government should be collecting more tax revenue aren’t paying extra taxes themselves voluntarily. No laws against overpaying your taxes.  Try living up to your philanthropic virtues with your own money first. 

 

It’s the anyone but me crowd. 

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

It’s too bad all the people who feel the government should be collecting more tax revenue aren’t paying extra taxes themselves voluntarily. No laws against overpaying your taxes.  Try living up to your philanthropic virtues with your own money first. 

“I can’t do it, unless the government tells me to.”

[BillStime]

3 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

It’s too bad all the people who feel the government should be collecting more tax revenue aren’t paying extra taxes themselves voluntarily. No laws against overpaying your taxes.  Try living up to your philanthropic virtues with your own money first. 

 

Ignorance is bliss 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

It’s the anyone but me crowd. 

 

28 minutes ago, Doc said:

“I can’t do it, unless the government tells me to.”

exactly! There is no shortage of deadbeats, tax cheats, insurance frauds, loafers, and adults spending money they don’t have that want to tell us  why We should give more of our  earned money to them, because it’s unfair We worked hard, made more good choices than bad and endeavored to succeed- which anyone in this country can do if they even half try. 
 

 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

exactly! There is no shortage of deadbeats, tax cheats, insurance frauds, loafers, and adults spending money they don’t have that want to tell us  why We should give more of our  earned money to them, because it’s unfair We worked hard, made more good choices than bad and endeavored to succeed- which anyone in this country can do if they even half try. 
 

 

Millionaires for billionaires - you simp

[B-Man]

On 5/12/2022 at 1:09 PM, B-Man said:

How will the new GQP tax INCREASE affect you?

 

It won't.

There isn't any.

It was a proposal by one senator, in a senate with a Democrat majority.

The thread is a "squirrel" posted by our resident nut.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by B-Man

[BillStime]

29 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Now do abortion

 

thanks