The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Kutnupe14]

did you read the FairTax book? The proposal is to tax everything. If you start making carve outs then you get back to where we are today. They wanted to give a pre-bate for poverty level spending to every household monthly to reimburse for taxes paid on essentials such as food.

Ok doc, just putting this out there. I'm not trying to interact with persons that don't want me to interact with them, as to save both of us some unfortunate misunderstandings. I'm not going to play the "today-tomorrow" game. It's your call as to how you want to proceed, but I you cant take my particular world outlook, then it's best we don't interact.
Ive addressed you in a respectful manner, so if you respond, I would appreciate a reciprocal response.... despite some, who most assuredly will not observe such.

 

[Woobie]

Ok doc, just putting this out there. I'm not trying to interact with persons that don't want me to interact with them, as to save both of us some unfortunate misunderstandings. I'm not going to play the "today-tomorrow" game. It's your call as to how you want to proceed, but I you cant take my particular world outlook, then it's best we don't interact.
Ive addressed you in a respectful manner, so if you respond, I would appreciate a reciprocal response.... despite some, who most assuredly will not observe such.

Didn't see anything disrespectful there

 

[hoosierdoc]

Ok doc, just putting this out there. I'm not trying to interact with persons that don't want me to interact with them, as to save both of us some unfortunate misunderstandings. I'm not going to play the "today-tomorrow" game. It's your call as to how you want to proceed, but I you cant take my particular world outlook, then it's best we don't interact.
Ive addressed you in a respectful manner, so if you respond, I would appreciate a reciprocal response.... despite some, who most assuredly will not observe such.

i don't care about who interacts with me. I don't want to be called a racist

 

[Woobie]

Any productive discussion of income tax really needs to take into account all of the taxes an individual pays. For example, a person making $20 an hour may not pay federal income tax, but he will pay social security taxes and let's not forget his employer share of social security is "baked into" the wages the employer is paying him. Add in, unemployment insurance, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (whether he's a "homeowner" or renter), etc etc., and you might stop accusing that "46% er" or paying no taxes. He pays a crap load of taxes!

The top earner stops paying those social security taxes at $127, 200, so that's a tax "break" of 15%.

No one earning wages within our system gets away without paying taxes.

Agreed. This highlights the the problem with the status quo. The government needs one income stream, and it needs to be smart and frugal about the way it uses that income. My preference is for that income stream to be collected in the most moral and fair way possible. I am willing to take incremental steps to get there.

 

[printcraft]

Originally Posted by hoosierdoc
did you read the FairTax book? The proposal is to tax everything. If you start making carve outs then you get back to where we are today. They wanted to give a pre-bate for poverty level spending to every household monthly to reimburse for taxes paid on essentials such as food.

Ok doc, just putting this out there. I'm not trying to interact with persons that don't want me to interact with them, as to save both of us some unfortunate misunderstandings. I'm not going to play the "today-tomorrow" game. It's your call as to how you want to proceed, but I you cant take my particular world outlook, then it's best we don't interact.
Ive addressed you in a respectful manner, so if you respond, I would appreciate a reciprocal response.... despite some, who most assuredly will not observe such.

Didn't see anything disrespectful there

 

[jamil]

No, I think your 46% is off a bit. Besides even if you get a refund that doesn’t mean Uncle Sam didn’t keep some. In fact even if you get back what you paid in Uncle Sam prevented you from earning interest on that sum. But as I said just because you get a refund doesn’t mean Uncle Sam didn’t retain a portion.

Hey, by everything I’ve heard I would be in favor of some of the other means of collecting taxes. But at some point a some have said and it’s way over due our spending has to be curtailed or eliminated in some cases. I’m all for tax reform, I just don’t see reasonable or actually any tax reform taking place, especially now.

The problem I have with the tax plan as it's being talked about is what happens to the people who are moved up into a higher bracket because their lower one disappeared. Last I heard the Republican plan has 3 brackets, 12%, 25%, and 33%. So what about those paying 10% now? So they'll be, not only put into a higher marginal tax rate than before, but will also lose deductions that applied that 10% to a lower AGI.

The 25% bracket would be a huge number of people ranging from 75K to 210K. The higher end of that will make out just fine, but what about the people at the lower end? Their tax rate won't change but they'll be paying that 25% on a higher AGI because they won't have the deductions they've enjoyed in the past. So their overall taxes paid would increase as well.

I really don't give a **** how much people make who are richer than me, but if I'd be pissed if were one of those people who end up paying more, just because of their positioning within the brackets. If you're going to cut taxes, cut them for everyone.

 

[jamil]

Any productive discussion of income tax really needs to take into account all of the taxes an individual pays. For example, a person making $20 an hour may not pay federal income tax, but he will pay social security taxes and let's not forget his employer share of social security is "baked into" the wages the employer is paying him. Add in, unemployment insurance, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (whether he's a "homeowner" or renter), etc etc., and you might stop accusing that "46% er" or paying no taxes. He pays a crap load of taxes!

The top earner stops paying those social security taxes at $127, 200, so that's a tax "break" of 15%.

No one earning wages within our system gets away without paying taxes.

Move to Mississippi's "senior friendly" communities. You won't pay state or local taxes on your check. Reduced property taxes. You'll get discounts for housing if you rent. Cost of living is dirt cheap there so what sales tax you do pay is not much compared to high cost-of-living areas.

 

[indiucky]

I don't want to be called a racist

You're not...

Never let others define who you are and what is in your heart.....

Ever.....

 

[indiucky]

Move to Mississippi's "senior friendly" communities. You won't pay state or local taxes on your check. Reduced property taxes. You'll get discounts for housing if you rent. Cost of living is dirt cheap there so what sales tax you do pay is not much compared to high cost-of-living areas.

And there are great Casinos...Just saying....

 

[indiucky]

Didn't see anything disrespectful there

An unfortunate misunderstanding between two good men...It happened to me and Alpo once and we worked it out...These two will as well...Just like I knew Trump would win........

 

[hoosierdoc]

Any productive discussion of income tax really needs to take into account all of the taxes an individual pays. For example, a person making $20 an hour may not pay federal income tax, but he will pay social security taxes and let's not forget his employer share of social security is "baked into" the wages the employer is paying him. Add in, unemployment insurance, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (whether he's a "homeowner" or renter), etc etc., and you might stop accusing that "46% er" or paying no taxes. He pays a crap load of taxes!

The top earner stops paying those social security taxes at $127, 200, so that's a tax "break" of 15%.

No one earning wages within our system gets away without paying taxes.

Oh come on, you can't call paying the maximum tax a "break" just because the next income isn't covered by it. If you get to do that then I get to whine and moan about my taxation for funds invested in excess of 401k or IRA maximum allowed deductions. Absurd.

A vast number of 46%ers actually make money on April 15. Through the year the vast majority are taking huge subsidies or direct payments. It used to just be SNAP/Medicaid but now it's all kinds of direct cash payments. Then you add in Obamacare subsidies. Average direct welfare payments are about $9000/person/year. That does not include the value of Medicaid versus private insurance policies. If you are making $35,000/year you are not paying anywhere near $9000 in taxes.

Alpo, did you know your medicare premium is HIGHER when you go to use it if you had a high income? Your whole life you paid MORE into the system because you made more (no cap on medicare taxes), you pay on every dollar, and your premium is STILL higher when it's time to enroll. And they're already talking about means-testing social security for those who had high incomes

If you're going to look at "all the taxes an individual pays" then you have to look at all the direct and indirect payments they received from .gov as well. Your argument falls apart when presented fairly. Can't just talk about what they pay, gotta look at what they get.

 

[hoosierdoc]

And I don't think kut was saying I was being disrespectful, he was trying to set groundrules for moving forward. Either we're going to ignore each other or we're not. I followed up with I don't mind interacting as long as I'm not being personally attacked and slandered.

 

[ghitch75]

oh boy....

Tammy Bruce: CNN's latest, desperate attempt to hammer Trump is mind-boggling | Fox News

 

[Alpo]

Move to Mississippi's "senior friendly" communities. You won't pay state or local taxes on your check. Reduced property taxes. You'll get discounts for housing if you rent. Cost of living is dirt cheap there so what sales tax you do pay is not much compared to high cost-of-living areas.

Not responsive to my post. But, you know that.

 

[Alpo]

Oh come on, you can't call paying the maximum tax a "break" just because the next income isn't covered by it. If you get to do that then I get to whine and moan about my taxation for funds invested in excess of 401k or IRA maximum allowed deductions. Absurd.

A vast number of 46%ers actually make money on April 15. Through the year the vast majority are taking huge subsidies or direct payments. It used to just be SNAP/Medicaid but now it's all kinds of direct cash payments. Then you add in Obamacare subsidies. Average direct welfare payments are about $9000/person/year. That does not include the value of Medicaid versus private insurance policies. If you are making $35,000/year you are not paying anywhere near $9000 in taxes.

Alpo, did you know your medicare premium is HIGHER when you go to use it if you had a high income? Your whole life you paid MORE into the system because you made more (no cap on medicare taxes), you pay on every dollar, and your premium is STILL higher when it's time to enroll. And they're already talking about means-testing social security for those who had high incomes

If you're going to look at "all the taxes an individual pays" then you have to look at all the direct and indirect payments they received from .gov as well. Your argument falls apart when presented fairly. Can't just talk about what they pay, gotta look at what they get.

A guy that complains on tax of excess IRA contributions can't consider $9,000 "huge". Just sayin'.

Maybe you forgot what it was like for someone to scrape by. I remember. I also remember the years I paid marginal rates close to what they are today.

I'm all for reduced medical costs for all of us....perhaps a doctor that pays tax on excess IRA contributions "might" not be part of the solution! LOL

 

[jamil]

Not responsive to my post. But, you know that.

Just making conversation. If I were going to retire I’d be tempted to move back.

 

[BugI02]

Well. He only set the bar lower. I’m more outcome oriented. As long as he doesn’t use the IRS and DOJ to punish the political opposition, and take bribes to give other countries special deals and access to government, as long as what he does is legal, I may wish his character behavior was way better, more honorable, but outcome is what mostly matters.

[While I do agree with this, the optics are sobering. The case could be made that we are moving towards the end justifying the means, although TrumpHaters will gloss over the the distinction of taking legal actions that he is duly empowered to perform]

Of course his temperment affects his ability to bring about a favorable outcome. It’s a significantly contributing reason why he couldn’t kill the Obaminable crony “healthcare” law.

But. Crass as he is, dishonorable as he behaves, Trump isn’t the biggest threat facing the US. The biggest threat is partisanship. And to whatever extent this administration is culpable for increasing it, the previous administration was at least as culpable.

Trump isn’t the biggest threat facing the US. The biggest threat is [STRIKE]partisanship[/STRIKE] [communism]

Even though it sounds oh so 50s, I think the idea that some people have a lot of stuff and others could have more stuff if it was 'redistributed' from those who earned it is as dangerous as it ever was. It has made its way into the mainstream and the hearts and minds of the youth, partisanship merely increases the supply the useful idiots

 

[BugI02]

We're trying to be respectful here right? Posts can be addressed without interjecting a personal component. I'm trying real hard to avoid the personal snark, so I'm asking that be reciprocated.
The WH has given us a glimpse into what they initially have planned. If it's implemented, then it will certainly be a windfall for the president.

Could there be any possible income tax reduction (short of one that specifically excludes him by name) that would not be a windfall for Trump?

This is the same fallacy that is always dusted off to attack tax cuts, that they are "tax cuts for the rich". Yes, I am aware that some so called 'deficit hawks' wanted to further limit 401K contribution levels to help 'pay' for allowing us all to keep more of our own earnings. Please be aware this was our so-called 'representatives' (do you think McCain has a 401k or needs one) and not Trump that floated this swamp gas balloon and Trump has already come out unequivocably against it

From: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2016-update/

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose to 20.6 percent in 2014. Their share of federal individual income taxes also rose, to 39.5 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 27.1 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.5 percent).

Under those circumstances, even a flat tax - of any rational percentage - would be a boon to the people who pay such a huge share of all taxes paid

I assume if you feel comfortable leveling the criticism, that you have an alternative plan in mind that would eliminate the 'fairness' disparity?

Apologies, the link utility is currently not working correctly for me

 

[hoosierdoc]

A guy that complains on tax of excess IRA contributions can't consider $9,000 "huge". Just sayin'.

I'm not complaining, I'm illustrating it to counter your argument that it's a "tax break" after paying SS tax on $117,000

That's $9000 per person, often families of five. $9000 is direct cash payments. Per person. Add another $25,000 worth of health insurance.

A study showed welfare recipient families in some states get more in combined welfare than the median family income in the US. That is YUGE

 

[BugI02]

Seems like the environmentalist like the new EPA Director so well he needs as much if not more security than the President. Surprise, surprise the person who sued the EPA the most who now heads the EPA looks to destroy our environment.

Simply assuming the truth of your desired conclusion; that without burdensome and intrusive EPA regulations our environment will be destroyed, is a false dichotomy and a logical fallacy