$15.00
$20.00
$5.00
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
The rich don't currently pay much into the Soc. Sec fund as a percentage of their total income from all sources. Like including stock options and investment income.

This is because they own the Gov., bought and paid for with campaign contributions. After the coming shake up in this country it will be the time to make some changes.

Some suggestions on things we might tax.
1] All stock market transactions at some really low percentage, like 0.01%. With sales at a loss being exempt or deductible.

2] Each share given or sold as a "stock option" deal as part of a compensation package or bonus plan is taxed some fixed amount. Like $1.00 per share.

Can anyone think of other income sources of the rich that are not currently taxed by Soc. Sec.?


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
This is because they own the Gov., bought and paid for with campaign contributions. After the coming shake up in this country it will be the time to make some changes.


What shake up? Neither candidate is threatening the status quo in terms of tax rates for the wealthy in any real way.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Terwox wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
This is because they own the Gov., bought and paid for with campaign contributions. After the coming shake up in this country it will be the time to make some changes.


What shake up? Neither candidate is threatening the status quo in terms of tax rates for the wealthy in any real way.

The US is due for a major shake up based on the "Turning" theory of Strauss and Howe. And, I'm hearing that the Millennials are just the generation to do it. This would make them the "Hero" generation of this Turning.
. . They got the shaft after they left College in debt and no good jobs to be found. They are computer savvy and social network savvy so they can get organized even if they have to live with their parents. They are mad as Hell and they are not going to take it for long.
. . So, yes, it will not be now, but in the 2020 or 2024 time frame watch out. Bernie was just the beginning, not the end.

Given the current sort of police we have in America it is not going to be pretty. [See the threads about trigger happy cops.] Part of what happened to Occupy Wall Street was 1]the police brutality and b] the media coverage that painted them in the most unfavorable light possible. However, "The people, United, can never be defeated." So, in the end the People will win.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
The rich don't currently pay much into the Soc. Sec fund as a percentage of their total income from all sources. Like including stock options and investment income.

This is because they own the Gov., bought and paid for with campaign contributions. After the coming shake up in this country it will be the time to make some changes.

Some suggestions on things we might tax.
1] All stock market transactions at some really low percentage, like 0.01%. With sales at a loss being exempt or deductible.

2] Each share given or sold as a "stock option" deal as part of a compensation package or bonus plan is taxed some fixed amount. Like $1.00 per share.

Can anyone think of other income sources of the rich that are not currently taxed by Soc. Sec.?




You've got this a little backwards. The social security tax was never meant to be progressive. The reason that "rich" people pay a relatively low fraction of income to social security is that the benefits are fixed and derived on the amount of contributions. Social security was created to assure a secure retirement benefit after the 1930's crash and it's relatively nominal. It's also meant to represent an individual drawing on their own contributions. Unfortunately, both political parties have allowed the social security "fund" to be drawn down rather than sequestered which has threatened it's solvency which combines poorly with a graying demographic.

Now, there is a fair argument that the wealthy have benefited from government policies which have raided what should have been protected social security funds. But, that simply lumps in with all of the other arguments having to do with al federal revenue, spending and debt.

As to how to "tax" the wealthy, it gets sticky. Your first suggestion to tax all stock transactions at .01%, assumes that only the wealthy trade in stocks. In fact people at all income levels can and do invest in the stock market and much of that trading is through pension funds which means you'll ultimately be targeting many on fixed incomes.

As to stock options, they are taxed, when exercised, at the prevailing capital gains rate (though the argument could be made this should be at the income tax rate).

One of the real stumbling blocks is how our tax codes have been massaged to benefit the relative few. One of Trumps big arguments is that we have a
high corporate tax rate. Of course that ignores that many corporations and people like Trump pay an effective tax rate of zero by taking advantage of tax "loopholes" or they have kept massive cash reserves offshore. It begs the question for Trump, if you are paying zero effective taxes, what difference will lowering the rates make? Back in the 80's Reagan struck a deal to reduce rates and simplify the tax code but this zipped up a lot of loopholes so that more taxes actually got paid.

Your later comment about angry millenials is interesting since those who support Trump (and many who supported Sanders and those who voted for Brexit) have been described as angry or anti-establishment. What is everyone so angry about? What has caused the conditions to give rise to that anger? What solutions would actually address those complaints? Part of the reason the Occupy movement failed is that it was an expression of inchoate anger without coalescing around any leaders nor any real policy solutions.

The "shake up" this country really needs is to balance three decades of primarily supply side economic policies with some balancing demand side policies. Minimum wage proposals are a start to be sure. Revising existing trade pacts should also be on the table. Unfortunately, the parties are currently entrenched in a dogmatic struggle over economic ideology rather than partnering real solutions.
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Rulesjd wrote:
You've got this a little backwards. The social security tax was never meant to be progressive. The reason that "rich" people pay a relatively low fraction of income to social security is that the benefits are fixed and derived on the amount of contributions. Social security was created to assure a secure retirement benefit after the 1930's crash and it's relatively nominal. It's also meant to represent an individual drawing on their own contributions. Unfortunately, both political parties have allowed the social security "fund" to be drawn down rather than sequestered which has threatened it's solvency which combines poorly with a graying demographic.

Now, there is a fair argument that the wealthy have benefited from government policies which have raided what should have been protected social security funds. But, that simply lumps in with all of the other arguments having to do with al federal revenue, spending and debt.

As to how to "tax" the wealthy, it gets sticky. Your first suggestion to tax all stock transactions at .01%, assumes that only the wealthy trade in stocks. In fact people at all income levels can and do invest in the stock market and much of that trading is through pension funds which means you'll ultimately be targeting many on fixed incomes.

As to stock options, they are taxed, when exercised, at the prevailing capital gains rate (though the argument could be made this should be at the income tax rate).

One of the real stumbling blocks is how our tax codes have been massaged to benefit the relative few. One of Trumps big arguments is that we have a
high corporate tax rate. Of course that ignores that many corporations and people like Trump pay an effective tax rate of zero by taking advantage of tax "loopholes" or they have kept massive cash reserves offshore. It begs the question for Trump, if you are paying zero effective taxes, what difference will lowering the rates make? Back in the 80's Reagan struck a deal to reduce rates and simplify the tax code but this zipped up a lot of loopholes so that more taxes actually got paid.

Your later comment about angry millenials is interesting since those who support Trump (and many who supported Sanders and those who voted for Brexit) have been described as angry or anti-establishment. What is everyone so angry about? What has caused the conditions to give rise to that anger? What solutions would actually address those complaints? Part of the reason the Occupy movement failed is that it was an expression of inchoate anger without coalescing around any leaders nor any real policy solutions.

The "shake up" this country really needs is to balance three decades of primarily supply side economic policies with some balancing demand side policies. Minimum wage proposals are a start to be sure. Revising existing trade pacts should also be on the table. Unfortunately, the parties are currently entrenched in a dogmatic struggle over economic ideology rather than partnering real solutions.

You have a lot of good points.

You did miss the fact that I'm specifically going to put the revenues from these taxes into the Soc. Sec. fund and not the general fund like they are now. Both the 0.01% tax and the $1 tax per share go into the Soc. Sec. fund. Pension fund transactions could also be exempt.

The point was to make Soc. Sec. solvent.

I think you don't give enough emphasis to the fact that Soc. Sec. was always seen as 'insurance'. Some die before they get what they paid in back and some live to get more than they paid in.

Also, the rich will get more benefits when they retire because [like you said] their benefits go up as the amount they have paid in went up.

And also, the plan under Reagan and the Dem Congress was to invest the Trust Fund in US T-Bills/Bonds because sucking that money out of the economy and somehow holding it in the Government's 'hands' would not be good for the economy. It amounts to what about $3 Trillion now. Just how would you have had the Gov. invest that much cash? Should it have bought real estate, or stocks, or just put in the banking system.
. . I think that they didn't foresee how companies would be able to increase productivity [i.e. revenue per hour of work] and not share the increased revenue with the lower level workers. This had the effect of moving the revenue from wages that were taxed for FICA and other compensation [including salaries over the 'cap'] which were/are not taxed by FICA. This then (over the 40 years since) has reduced the size of the current SS Trust Fund by about $1 Trillion.
. . This is why I don't worry much about the rich being taxed by FICA more now that they can ever get back later even if they live to 120.

Every generation needs to support the old folks. The 'greatest richest nation the world has ever known' can afford to support its elderly.
. . Every generation or so, the people should decide how they want to do this. The elderly should be encouraged or allowed to die only if there were some huge disaster [like a huge (half mile across) meteor strike in Kansas], etc. Otherwise, this nation should keep the elderly out of poverty and not slash benefits 25% when the Trust Fund runs out.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Based upon my poor understanding of history, science, and ethics...
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
(Do I dare point out it is a payroll tax, and that those rich, conniving, fiends are actually matching every dollar contributed by the employee for a benefit they may never qualify to use?)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Koldfoot wrote:
(Do I dare point out it is a payroll tax, and that those rich, conniving, fiends are actually matching every dollar contributed by the employee for a benefit they may never qualify to use?)

This only applies to their household staff; nanny, housekeeper, gardener, driver, etc. All other workers work for companies and not directly for the rich. And anyway, the companies can deduct the FICA tax that they pay or match, IIRC.

Also, people widely say that all of the FICA tax is part of the employee's pay package and therefore, not paid by the comp., but rather by the employee. Koldfoot, did you ever say that here yourself? Just asking.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
The rich don't currently pay much into the Soc. Sec fund as a percentage of their total income from all sources. Like including stock options and investment income.

This is because they own the Gov., bought and paid for with campaign contributions. After the coming shake up in this country it will be the time to make some changes.

Some suggestions on things we might tax.
1] All stock market transactions at some really low percentage, like 0.01%. With sales at a loss being exempt or deductible.

2] Each share given or sold as a "stock option" deal as part of a compensation package or bonus plan is taxed some fixed amount. Like $1.00 per share.

Can anyone think of other income sources of the rich that are not currently taxed by Soc. Sec.?





The law is the law, and it has a cutoff on what can be taken paid into Social Security.

Don't like it, change the law.



Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually, Steve, the "rich" already pay an extra tax on "stock market transactions" - see Form 8960. It's a 3.9% tax on "passive income" for those making more than $200,000 in income.

There is also a 0.9% tax on wages earned by a taxpayer in excess of $200,000 - that's on Form 8959.

And finally, stock options are taxable already. The are taxed in different ways, but they are taxable. Qualified stock options (such as ISO's) are taxable for Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) purposes when they are exercised, and then taxed at regular income tax rates when they are sold. Non-qualified stock options (what they call "cashless" options) are taxed when they are exercised - and, they are taxed at "ordinary" rates rather than capital gains rates, which means you may be paying as much as 39.6% rather than being capped at 20%.

Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share". The wealthy pay "extra" taxes on lots of extra stuff that the "regular folk" don't come anywhere near to having to pay. And this doesn't even take into consideration that the IRS will tax some of that income again when the person dies - i.e. the "estate tax".
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share". The wealthy pay "extra" taxes on lots of extra stuff that the "regular folk" don't come anywhere near to having to pay. And this doesn't even take into consideration that the IRS will tax some of that income again when the person dies - i.e. the "estate tax".


It depends on your definition of fair.

A flat percentage tax isn't necessarily fair.

Requiring everyone to pay the same amount isn't exactly fair -- how many people couldn't do that at all?

"Their fair share" seems like a decent side note in a land where the Gini coefficient is trending upwards and has been for a while.

In the end, rich people also pay for a lot of loopholes to exist in the tax code so that their effective tax rate goes down. Because for some, it's cheaper to buy a change in policy than it is to pay your taxes.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Actually, Steve, the "rich" already pay an extra tax on "stock market transactions" - see Form 8960. It's a 3.9% tax on "passive income" for those making more than $200,000 in income.


I'm actually quite aware of that....I thought we were discussing the SSN contribution cutoff, not other fees the government steals charges here. That's why I stuck to just that one regulation/law.


chrisnd wrote:

Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share". The wealthy pay "extra" taxes on lots of extra stuff that the "regular folk" don't come anywhere near to having to pay. And this doesn't even take into consideration that the IRS will tax some of that income again when the person dies - i.e. the "estate tax".


I agree completely. And it's even worse when you look at the percentage of the government paid for by "the rich", and then tie that to people complaining "the rich" have too much say in government. They're getting the government they're paying for; if they're hit for more $$$ then it follows they'll have more influence.


Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Actually, Steve, the "rich" already pay an extra tax on "stock market transactions" - see Form 8960. It's a 3.9% tax on "passive income" for those making more than $200,000 in income.


I'm actually quite aware of that....I thought we were discussing the SSN contribution cutoff, not other fees the government steals charges here. That's why I stuck to just that one regulation/law.


chrisnd wrote:

Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share". The wealthy pay "extra" taxes on lots of extra stuff that the "regular folk" don't come anywhere near to having to pay. And this doesn't even take into consideration that the IRS will tax some of that income again when the person dies - i.e. the "estate tax".


I agree completely. And it's even worse when you look at the percentage of the government paid for by "the rich", and then tie that to people complaining "the rich" have too much say in government. They're getting the government they're paying for; if they're hit for more $$$ then it follows they'll have more influence.


Ferret


Hey, Ferret - I was answering Steve Fitt, not you. If I am responding to you, I would probably type "Ferret", rather than Steve, since that is how you always end your posts.

It's like responding to Chin - I know his real name, but everyone around here know him as "Chin", so that's how I respond to him.

Sorry for the confusion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Actually, Steve, the "rich" already pay an extra tax on "stock market transactions" - see Form 8960. It's a 3.9% tax on "passive income" for those making more than $200,000 in income.


I'm actually quite aware of that....I thought we were discussing the SSN contribution cutoff, not other fees the government steals charges here. That's why I stuck to just that one regulation/law.


chrisnd wrote:

Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share". The wealthy pay "extra" taxes on lots of extra stuff that the "regular folk" don't come anywhere near to having to pay. And this doesn't even take into consideration that the IRS will tax some of that income again when the person dies - i.e. the "estate tax".


I agree completely. And it's even worse when you look at the percentage of the government paid for by "the rich", and then tie that to people complaining "the rich" have too much say in government. They're getting the government they're paying for; if they're hit for more $$$ then it follows they'll have more influence.


Ferret


Hey, Ferret - I was answering Steve Fitt, not you. If I am responding to you, I would probably type "Ferret", rather than Steve, since that is how you always end your posts.


Hey cool! I thought it was kinda odd, so thanks for the clarification.


Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
Ferretman wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Actually, Steve, the "rich" already pay an extra tax on "stock market transactions" - see Form 8960. It's a 3.9% tax on "passive income" for those making more than $200,000 in income.


I'm actually quite aware of that....I thought we were discussing the SSN contribution cutoff, not other fees the government steals charges here. That's why I stuck to just that one regulation/law.


chrisnd wrote:

Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share". The wealthy pay "extra" taxes on lots of extra stuff that the "regular folk" don't come anywhere near to having to pay. And this doesn't even take into consideration that the IRS will tax some of that income again when the person dies - i.e. the "estate tax".


I agree completely. And it's even worse when you look at the percentage of the government paid for by "the rich", and then tie that to people complaining "the rich" have too much say in government. They're getting the government they're paying for; if they're hit for more $$$ then it follows they'll have more influence.


Ferret


Maybe if the rich paid their employees more, they wouldn't have to shoulder the "burden" they do now.

The cap on income should also be eliminated. I think it's wages over $101,000 or so where the cap is. Why should someone making $400,000 a year not pay the same percentage of payroll tax as the person making $100,000?

But I agree with Ferret: change the law. And make the SS fund a lock box to keep those goddamn Congress members from stealing money to fund bridges to nowhere or grants to study why cows fart so much.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share".


When you calculate overall marginal tax rates, the rich are frequently not paying their fair share. Saying "well they pay all these extra taxes that poors don't" doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of rich people who can elect to organize their income in ways that reduce their tax burden so that they pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than average lower-middle-class people pay.

Quote:
And this doesn't even take into consideration that the IRS will tax some of that income again when the person dies - i.e. the "estate tax".


When you die, the money that is taxed via the estate tax is not YOUR income, because you are dead and you would only spend it on worm accessories. It is the income of your heirs, and it's just income, and it gets taxed, much like we tax other forms of income. Anybody who has to pay estate tax is receiving an enormous windfall.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
their fair share.


The poor don't pay their fair share either, also who gets to decide what the "fair share" is ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
their fair share.


The poor don't pay their fair share either, also who gets to decide what the "fair share" is ?


The social contract decides.

You can find out where they deliberated by driving there on a road.

Also, Benghazi!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
From here:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/taxes-richest-am...

(I googled "effective income tax rate.")



Does literally anyone think that the top 1% paying less of a percentage than the top quintile is fair?

If you prefer a flat tax, a VAT, no taxes, or any other system, that doesn't mean you think the current system is fair.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:


Maybe if the rich paid their employees more, they wouldn't have to shoulder the "burden" they do now.


Maybe, maybe not. All that really does is raise the price of everything else.

remorseless1 wrote:

The cap on income should also be eliminated. I think it's wages over $101,000 or so where the cap is. Why should someone making $400,000 a year not pay the same percentage of payroll tax as the person making $100,000?


Agree 100%. As long as we have this silly SSN system, there shouldn't be hard limit on how much is taken contributed from each paycheck, no matter how much you earn.

remorseless1 wrote:

But I agree with Ferret: change the law. And make the SS fund a lock box to keep those goddamn Congress members from stealing money to fund bridges to nowhere or grants to study why cows fart so much.


Amen! Lock box, no exceptions.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
mightygodking wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share".


When you calculate overall marginal tax rates, the rich are frequently not paying their fair share. Saying "well they pay all these extra taxes that poors don't" doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of rich people who can elect to organize their income in ways that reduce their tax burden so that they pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than average lower-middle-class people pay.


Um, how is it "fair" for me to have to pay more into a system than you? That's demonstrably the opposite of fair; that's confiscation.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:


I think you don't give enough emphasis to the fact that Soc. Sec. was always seen as 'insurance'. Some die before they get what they paid in back and some live to get more than they paid in.

Also, the rich will get more benefits when they retire because [like you said] their benefits go up as the amount they have paid in went up.

And also, the plan under Reagan and the Dem Congress was to invest the Trust Fund in US T-Bills/Bonds because sucking that money out of the economy and somehow holding it in the Government's 'hands' would not be good for the economy. It amounts to what about $3 Trillion now. Just how would you have had the Gov. invest that much cash? Should it have bought real estate, or stocks, or just put in the banking system.
. . I think that they didn't foresee how companies would be able to increase productivity [i.e. revenue per hour of work] and not share the increased revenue with the lower level workers. This had the effect of moving the revenue from wages that were taxed for FICA and other compensation [including salaries over the 'cap'] which were/are not taxed by FICA. This then (over the 40 years since) has reduced the size of the current SS Trust Fund by about $1 Trillion.
. . This is why I don't worry much about the rich being taxed by FICA more now that they can ever get back later even if they live to 120.

Every generation needs to support the old folks. The 'greatest richest nation the world has ever known' can afford to support its elderly.
. . Every generation or so, the people should decide how they want to do this. The elderly should be encouraged or allowed to die only if there were some huge disaster [like a huge (half mile across) meteor strike in Kansas], etc. Otherwise, this nation should keep the elderly out of poverty and not slash benefits 25% when the Trust Fund runs out.



Complex topics don't well in what are essentially social media platforms. I'm not sure why you would emphasize the "insurance" nature of social security. It does share some of those aspects but, it is more in the form of a contract. As insurance, it is more useful to view it as insurance for the country at large against volatility in the investment/banking sectors. Having large swaths of the public suddenly without fixed income is highly disruptive to the economy and this is in part what happened in the Great Depression.

How to make the social security trust fund more effective/solvent? Certainly, there could be some room for investment of the funds in conservative ways that would provide some actual return. Such decisions become political footballs in an or themselves. GOP calls for individual trust funds would again expose everyone to the peril of risky and speculative investment strategies that would completely obviate the purpose of social security in the first place. Some guidelines could be created to sequester those funds and invest them. In addition, recognition of changing demographics has necessitated adjustments as we have seen in when benefits vest.

Your last point is perhaps not as obvious as you would have us believe. Certainly you can make the argument that an enlightened western society, especially a wealthy one, should care for it's elderly. This is a social welfare argument bound to raise the hackles of conservatives. The US has developed over time the habit of individual family members taking up increasingly separate habitation from one another. We've seen a trend in children returning to the family home after college (in the face of college debt and high rent prices) in order to build up resources so they could ultimately afford their own homes. It is possible for the post retirement elderly to return to the family home as well, and for multi generational family homes to become prominent as they were in the past.

There are challenges to current families in absorbing retired parents. Space may be tight. Social frictions are bound to occur as elderly parents become more dependent. Privacy dynamics within the family would change. On the other hand, consolidating families would reduce demand for housing units (bringing down pricing pressures to some extent) and would likely achieve some other efficiencies as daily routines were collapsed (maybe even taking some cars off the road).

The question becomes, why should the government support elderly in situ when there are families who could take care of their own? This is a social/cultural question that certainly warrants consideration in parallel with elder benefits. IT's a very tough topic since we've grown comfortable with our habit of being separate and taking elder parents back into the home is perhaps a tacit acknowledgment that our expected standard of living might be a little more constrained moving forward.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
Ferretman wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share".


When you calculate overall marginal tax rates, the rich are frequently not paying their fair share. Saying "well they pay all these extra taxes that poors don't" doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of rich people who can elect to organize their income in ways that reduce their tax burden so that they pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than average lower-middle-class people pay.


Um, how is it "fair" for me to have to pay more into a system than you? That's demonstrably the opposite of fair; that's confiscation.



Ferret

If you make more money, you've benefited from the system more than those who make less, and by paying more, you're continuing to benefit from the system. Not saying we have a 95% tax like the UK did back in the 1950s-1960s, but it should be changed somewhat. Removing the SS cap is an excellent way of doing so. Perhaps eliminating tax deductions for those making $1M+ ($2M+ for married/dependents) and then giving them a flat 10-15% tax.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Oliver Dienz
United States
Burlington
Vermont
flag msg tools
Ferretman wrote:
remorseless1 wrote:


Maybe if the rich paid their employees more, they wouldn't have to shoulder the "burden" they do now.


Maybe, maybe not. All that really does is raise the price of everything else.

What you are saying is that the real wage would stay the same. In the end, the solution will be to have less of all income go to the top earners if you want more equality. That can happen through more taxes for the wealthy or higher salaries for the lower wage earners.

Quote:
remorseless1 wrote:

But I agree with Ferret: change the law. And make the SS fund a lock box to keep those goddamn Congress members from stealing money to fund bridges to nowhere or grants to study why cows fart so much.


Amen! Lock box, no exceptions.
Ferret

The government is the currency issuer. How would putting $ in some kind of lock box make us any better off the in the future when we could just print them on demand?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
Um, how is it "fair" for me to have to pay more into a system than you?


First off, I'm probably one of the higher-earning RSP regulars, all things considered, plus I'm categorized as an employee and I live in a Northern Socialist Utopia so I probably pay a higher marginal tax rate than most people here. But let us assume that by "me and you" you meant "why is it fair for a higher earner to have to pay more taxes, proportional to their income, than a lower earner?"

The answer is that society protects more of the higher earner's wealth and spends more to help the higher earner generate it. Public schools provide the higher earner with an educated employee base instead of having to educate his employees himself. Public roads provide the higher earner with easier access to transport for his business. Police and fire departments and other public safety initiatives are mathematically just more valuable to higher earners than lower earners, because higher earners have more to lose and are more obviously valuable targets. And so on and so forth.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
Still drives me nuts when people claim that they rich are not paying "their fair share".


When you calculate overall marginal tax rates, the rich are frequently not paying their fair share. Saying "well they pay all these extra taxes that poors don't" doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of rich people who can elect to organize their income in ways that reduce their tax burden so that they pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than average lower-middle-class people pay.


Um, how is it "fair" for me to have to pay more into a system than you? That's demonstrably the opposite of fair; that's confiscation.

Ferret


No.

It's a good example of how the term "fair" is fuzzy.

Every American cannot pay the same amount in taxes, the reasons should be immediately obvious.
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.