No one talking about My RA?

[gilesfan]

Lol Obama. Lol.

[gilesfan]

Ahhhhhh, I see:
The MyRA account offers a solid, entry-level plan to get people started. Unfortunately, the president has made a separate proposal that could crimp retirement savings for those further up the income ladder.

The White House has said the tax advantage that underpins all retirement savings has been too generous for those with lots of wealth to set aside during their working years. So he's calling on Congress to scale back tax breaks for wealthy households when they sock away money in a tax advantaged retirement account.

(Read more: The tiny change that made AT&T almost $8 billion)

According to the White House, some two-thirds of tax benefits for retirement saving go to the top 20 percent of the income ladder, and one-third goes to the top 5 percent.
Obama wants to limit the tax benefits to those top earners to 28 percent of what they set aside. And he's proposing a cap on tax preferred savings accounts of $3.2 million, which the White House thinks is all anyone needs "to fund a reasonable pension in retirement."

[Tapate50]

Basically the govt sees money they cannot get ahold of... And are trying to.

[sturg33]

That nutjob Ron Paul saw this one coming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJq0G4yr_K4&feature=youtu.be

[jpx7]

some two-thirds of tax benefits for retirement saving go to the top 20 percent of the income ladder, and one-third goes to the top 5 percent.

That's a legitimate, problematic inequity. Not sure why you all are crowing about this.

[gilesfan]

You mean people benefit from saving more? Oh the humanity!

[jpx7]

You mean people benefit from saving more? Oh the humanity!

People in a position to grow ample savings benefit enough already without receiving additional tax-breaks simply and solely for their largesse.

[gilesfan]

Benefit by paying the large majority of taxes in the country and paying a higher tax rate simply from being successful?

[Tapate50]

That nutjob Ron Paul saw this one coming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJq0G4yr_K4&feature=youtu.be

I almost lost it when the guy took a few swigs of wine next to RP. That was great...

[50PoundHead]

That nutjob Ron Paul saw this one coming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJq0G4yr_K4&feature=youtu.be

Why is this tax break different than any others? Why should people get a tax break for something they were likely to do anyway?

People always talk about broadening the tax base, lowering the rate, and get the government out of messing with the economy . . . until, of course, the base-broadening includes something they are taking advantage of. A tax expenditure is a tax expenditure and IRAs haven't boosted the individual savings rate, which has been in decline (with an uptick due to the economic downturn of the mid-00s) since they were created in 1986.

No one is confiscating IRAs here.

[57Brave]

Me thinks it has more to do with who is doing the proposing - than the proposal in the flesh.

[zitothebrave]

Benefit by paying the large majority of taxes in the country and paying a higher tax rate simply from being successful?

It's shortsighted thinking like that that leads to big problems. Yes the rich pay the large majority of income taxes, because they make the large majority of the money. That's really not shocking. Under any form of an income tax they'll spend the most because they earn the most.

What the problem is that as jpx pointed out the current tax system greatly benefits the very rich. When I say very rich mind you I'm not talking about you or AA who make good incomes but people who make way more than the top 1%. While the republicans have successfully conned you into thinking this is a war on people who've earned their money, they don't talk about the other tax benefits that come with being rich.

Here's a figure based on the quintiles and what they pay in payroll and excise taxes as a part of their income in 2007

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg

The same regressive trend exists on state levels as well

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f3.jpg

The idea of the "burdened" tax payer does exist, but it's not the wealthy.

One more graph just for fun, this is the total tax bill federal and state broken into quintiles but expanded upon in the top 90%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/total-tax-bill-income.jpg

There's a stiff rise as you make money up til the highest quintile. The highest quintile starts at about 100K. Basically meaning that until you earn over 100K you're paying out the nose the more you earn. When you hit the 80th percentile things start to slowly go up, not at the stark increase you see when you first look at the graph.

There's barely an increase going from 90-95 to the 95-99 then a drop off for the top 1%. Basically the top 10% garners a more favorable take

More food for though, from 2000-2009 the effective tax rates of folks earning 200K+ adjusted gross income as part of their group.

37.2% had an effective tax rate of 15-20%, 30.5 20-25, 16.7 25-30 and 10 at 10-15. Basically the rich pay more in taxes that is true, but it's not by some astronomical account when you factor in their income.

I think the american tax code is very backwards and while the income tax is progressive to a point, it's the only tax that is, the capital gains is regressive, retirement taxes are regressive, and so on so forth.

Basically the rich have us by the balls, you can choose to embrace that I choose to feel disgusted by it.

[Julio3000]

Benefit by paying the large majority of taxes in the country and paying a higher tax rate simply from being successful?

That really is unfair. Maybe some really rich guys should get together and drop hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks and PACs devoted to convincing everyone that really rich guys get a raw deal in america.

[zitothebrave]

2 more graphs, because I love them.

First is simple, shows financial wealth of the top 20% vs the bottom 80%

http://currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/financial_wealth_pie_chart.png

And one more, this tracks productivity and median family income (aka the middle class)

http://currydemocrats.org/in_perspective/productivity_family_income.png

Basically the american worker is more efficient than ever and being paid less for it. And show of all shocks, it started about the time as Reaganomics. Shocker that crony capitalism would have that kind of effect.

[50PoundHead]

zito, we will need a new category for you. I suggest "King of Graphs."

[gilesfan]

That nutjob Ron Paul saw this one coming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJq0G4yr_K4&feature=youtu.be


No sound on my cpu Im working on bc of snow. The My RA isn't IRA confiscation is it?

[gilesfan]

This graph basically tells it all. It's not fair to say the rich don't pay their share of taxes. As a matter of fact, they pay an amount way more than the poor does.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/total-tax-bill-income.jpg



The people that get hurt are in the middle.

[gilesfan]

Why should the U.S. govt penalize me for putting money away towards my own retirement account? I will never see a dime of the thousands and thousands I've paid in social security in my lifetime. That is likely a lot more than what I have in my retirement right now. Think I paid somewhere close to 10k in social security this year. Will never see a dime of that.

[50PoundHead]

No sound on my cpu Im working on bc of snow. The My RA isn't IRA confiscation is it?

Confiscation implies that the entire amount would be taken by the government. It appears (and I haven't read it that closely) is that what Obama is proposing is that the tax advantage be reduced or eliminated. That is something different.

This argument was around when the IRA as part of the tax reform of 1986. They got rid of a whole bunch of deductions and credits (did you know that you were once able to deduct your credit card interest and the sales tax paid in your state?) and created a couple of new ones, including the IRA. I was doing my grad paper on tax reform at the time and the arguments are the same now as they were then. There was hope that the IRA would move taxpayers from consumption to savings (it hasn't). The other suggestion at the time was to allow taxpayers to deduct interest earned in savings accounts up to a certain limit, which would have probably had a more universal benefit than IRAs, but that was not the route chosen.

If it would have been me giving suggestions, I wouldn't have gone down this road at all. Don't create the deduction and drop the marginal rates further. I think the IRA had some additional steam from those who wanted to curb the growth of Social Security and that needs to be factored into the political calculation of why they were established.

[zitothebrave]

Are you not paying attention? Where the top 1% has a lower effective tax bill than the people in the 80-90? What world does that make sense?

Yo're right the people in the middle get hurt, but in what way is what you're advocating (people who earn their money should keep it) is good for the middle class?

[gilesfan]

Are you not paying attention? Where the top 1% has a lower effective tax bill than the people in the 80-90? What world does that make sense?

Yo're right the people in the middle get hurt, but in what way is what you're advocating (people who earn their money should keep it) is good for the middle class?

Im referring to the bottom. They are paying much less as a percentage. Is that fair? Are everyone "equal?"

Ideally, it would be even across the board. But, instead the rich get richer, the poor get poorer despite having stuff handed to them, and the people in the middle get screwed.

[zitothebrave]

So you think that someone who makes 25K or under can afford to pay 20% of their taxes as easily as someone who makes 2 million? Progressive tax works if it's carried out properly. Problem is that we don't have a progressive tax system. Instead we have a crony tax system.

[gilesfan]

So you think that someone who makes 25K or under can afford to pay 20% of their taxes as easily as someone who makes 2 million? Progressive tax works if it's carried out properly. Problem is that we don't have a progressive tax system. Instead we have a crony tax system.

All people are equal, correct? Why should my income tax% be 30%, while someone elses is 17%?

[zitothebrave]

All people are equal, correct? Why should my income tax% be 30%, while someone elses is 17%?

Because you having 70K in money available isn't the same as someone having 7K. You still have an impressive amount of buying power, and the lower earners can buy you know food groceries and gas.

[weso1]

It's shortsighted thinking like that that leads to big problems. Yes the rich pay the large majority of income taxes, because they make the large majority of the money. That's really not shocking. Under any form of an income tax they'll spend the most because they earn the most.

What the problem is that as jpx pointed out the current tax system greatly benefits the very rich. When I say very rich mind you I'm not talking about you or AA who make good incomes but people who make way more than the top 1%. While the republicans have successfully conned you into thinking this is a war on people who've earned their money, they don't talk about the other tax benefits that come with being rich.

Here's a figure based on the quintiles and what they pay in payroll and excise taxes as a part of their income in 2007

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f2.jpg

The same regressive trend exists on state levels as well

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/5-26-11tax-f3.jpg

The idea of the "burdened" tax payer does exist, but it's not the wealthy.

One more graph just for fun, this is the total tax bill federal and state broken into quintiles but expanded upon in the top 90%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/09/total-tax-bill-income.jpg

There's a stiff rise as you make money up til the highest quintile. The highest quintile starts at about 100K. Basically meaning that until you earn over 100K you're paying out the nose the more you earn. When you hit the 80th percentile things start to slowly go up, not at the stark increase you see when you first look at the graph.

There's barely an increase going from 90-95 to the 95-99 then a drop off for the top 1%. Basically the top 10% garners a more favorable take

More food for though, from 2000-2009 the effective tax rates of folks earning 200K+ adjusted gross income as part of their group.

37.2% had an effective tax rate of 15-20%, 30.5 20-25, 16.7 25-30 and 10 at 10-15. Basically the rich pay more in taxes that is true, but it's not by some astronomical account when you factor in their income.

I think the american tax code is very backwards and while the income tax is progressive to a point, it's the only tax that is, the capital gains is regressive, retirement taxes are regressive, and so on so forth.

Basically the rich have us by the balls, you can choose to embrace that I choose to feel disgusted by it.

I actually agree with you on this one. It's silly to have a progressive tax in which the top earners pay less than the group below them. That's not how a progressive tax system is supposed to work. Really though rather than raise rates the way we tax needs to be changed.

[sturg33]

No sound on my cpu Im working on bc of snow. The My RA isn't IRA confiscation is it?

Baby steps

[zitothebrave]

I actually agree with you on this one. It's silly to have a progressive tax in which the top earners pay less than the group below them. That's not how a progressive tax system is supposed to work. Really though rather than raise rates the way we tax needs to be changed.

I'm a proponent of lowering rates and eliminating deductibles. As well as removing payroll caps (or at least raising them significantly), and making a progressive accumulative capital gains (read money earned minus money lossed minus money invested equals tax amount)

[50PoundHead]

I actually agree with you on this one. It's silly to have a progressive tax in which the top earners pay less than the group below them. That's not how a progressive tax system is supposed to work. Really though rather than raise rates the way we tax needs to be changed.

You're on the right and I'm on the left, but we pretty much agree here. Continuing to dink around with marginal rates doesn't get at the heart of the issue. I hate consumption taxes (regressive by nature and can be extremely regressive if applied against all goods), but we may need to look in that direction a bit. We really have to look at the entire set of credits/deductions (good luck with that seeing every deduction and credit have about ten lobbyists representing it), but if we could somehow get find a reasonable zero-bracket, a workable definition of information, and a set of sensible marginal rates and we could head in the right direction.

[weso1]

The biggest fear I have is the government tapping into Roth IRA savings accounts. It's not hard to imagine the federal government deciding that those who were responsible, saved up money for retirement and passed on a more extravagant lifestyle, should be taxed because they have enough to live on compared to those who were less responsible.

Much better to just limit the amount of money that someone can put into retirement, which is what is going on here. That way a person doesn't get double taxed later on. Retirement savings should be encouraged, but I agree with liberals that we need to cut back on some of these tax shelters for the wealthy. Specifically the ones that have no real obvious benefit on the economy.

[gilesfan]

Because you having 70K in money available isn't the same as someone having 7K. You still have an impressive amount of buying power, and the lower earners can buy you know food groceries and gas.

In other words, the harder I work, the more that I should give to others, correct?

[gilesfan]

The biggest fear I have is the government tapping into Roth IRA savings accounts. It's not hard to imagine the federal government deciding that those who were responsible, saved up money for retirement and passed on a more extravagant lifestyle, should be taxed because they have enough to live on compared to those who were less responsible.

Much better to just limit the amount of money that someone can put into retirement, which is what is going on here. That way a person doesn't get double taxed later on. Retirement savings should be encouraged, but I agree with liberals that we need to cut back on some of these tax shelters for the wealthy. Specifically the ones that have no real obvious benefit on the economy.

How does limiting the amount of money put into retirement make sense? I guess we should have people work till they are 75, bc 70 is too young to retire and wouldn't want you to be able to live comfortably. (or leave money to children; which is already double taxed)

[sturg33]

In other words, the harder I work, the more that I should give to others, correct?

They will never say that, but that is exactly what is meant

[zitothebrave]

In other words, the harder I work, the more that I should give to others, correct?

Hard work is relevant. Do you think a CEO at a company works harder than someone who runs their own restaurant and scrapes by? Do you think that you work harder than a migrant farmer who works in the fields from sunrise to sunset?

I think that we like ina society where we have 2 options. Option 1 is to support the society, option 2 is to not support it and everyone lives on their own. You're clearly advocating the latter. I guess you'll be avoiding cities if that actually came into effect because the crime rates there would just shoot up if they couldn't be supported.

[gilesfan]

Hard work is relevant. Do you think a CEO at a company works harder than someone who runs their own restaurant and scrapes by? Do you think that you work harder than a migrant farmer who works in the fields from sunrise to sunset?

I think that we like ina society where we have 2 options. Option 1 is to support the society, option 2 is to not support it and everyone lives on their own. You're clearly advocating the latter. I guess you'll be avoiding cities if that actually came into effect because the crime rates there would just shoot up if they couldn't be supported.

Do I work harder than someone that puts in 30 hours a week at McDonalds?

My good friend is a farmer, yep, he works his butt off (8 months a year), I tip my cap to him. The govt is royally screwing the farmers as well.

I support the society. I paid 20k in federal taxes this year and a few thousand in state taxes. Also paid a few thousand in social security. But, hey, lets get in my pocket some more.....thats not enough!

[thethe]

Its just amazing the mindset of people who feel that those who are successful need to help more and more and more to those that are not. When is enough enough? Will it be 45% 50% 60%. Where does it end?

[zitothebrave]

Do I work harder than someone that puts in 30 hours a week at McDonalds?

My good friend is a farmer, yep, he works his butt off (8 months a year), I tip my cap to him. The govt is royally screwing the farmers as well.

I support the society. I paid 20k in federal taxes this year and a few thousand in state taxes. Also paid a few thousand in social security. But, hey, lets get in my pocket some more.....thats not enough!

There is no words for how dumb this post is.

[50PoundHead]

The biggest fear I have is the government tapping into Roth IRA savings accounts. It's not hard to imagine the federal government deciding that those who were responsible, saved up money for retirement and passed on a more extravagant lifestyle, should be taxed because they have enough to live on compared to those who were less responsible.

Much better to just limit the amount of money that someone can put into retirement, which is what is going on here. That way a person doesn't get double taxed later on. Retirement savings should be encouraged, but I agree with liberals that we need to cut back on some of these tax shelters for the wealthy. Specifically the ones that have no real obvious benefit on the economy.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. I don't anything could be done to any IRAs--Roth or otherwise--retroactively that would pass Congress.

The way around this is to take a longer look at capital gains. I'm not saying treat it completely as income (although that's what it truly is, I'm just realistic about how the capital class would balk at that), but the preference is too high right now.

[50PoundHead]

Its just amazing the mindset of people who feel that those who are successful need to help more and more and more to those that are not. When is enough enough? Will it be 45% 50% 60%. Where does it end?

That's not even the discussion here.

[thethe]

That's not even the discussion here.

If you're are going to penalize those that save then in essence it is the same discussion.

[gilesfan]

Its ok Zito. I understand you want me to give you more and more money bc you don't feel like working.

[zitothebrave]

Its just amazing the mindset of people who feel that those who are successful need to help more and more and more to those that are not. When is enough enough? Will it be 45% 50% 60%. Where does it end?

Wow you people really buy into that republican crap huh?

let me ask you this thethe do you think it's cool that A-Rod may be paying less in income tax as a percentage than you?

[gilesfan]

There is no words for how dumb this post is.

Do you know where that money goes to? Have you seen breakdowns of where it goes? I assume not.

[zitothebrave]

Its ok Zito. I understand you want me to give you more and more money bc you don't feel like working.

Lol that's funny. What's funny is you probably think that's a good "burn"

[gilesfan]

Wow you people really buy into that republican crap huh?

let me ask you this thethe do you think it's cool that A-Rod may be paying less in income tax as a percentage than you?

Do you think its fair that you pay 17% while I pay 30%?

[sturg33]

Wow you people really buy into that republican crap huh?

let me ask you this thethe do you think it's cool that A-Rod may be paying less in income tax as a percentage than you?

Can you prove this?

Also, I'd love to see the actual dollar figures.

Because my guess is, AROD pays 300X more money in taxes than thethe. He receives exactly the same amount of benefits from those taxes (probably less actually). And yet, that's not "fair"

[zitothebrave]

Do you know where that money goes to? Have you seen breakdowns of where it goes? I assume not.

Military, pensions, and healthcare primarily. AKA employing people in the federal government.

[sturg33]

Military, pensions, and healthcare primarily. AKA employing people in the federal government.

Taxes aren't the issue. Spending is the issue.

If you took the 2006 federal budget, we could have a 0% income tax on EVERY American, and not have a dollar more in deficit than we did in 2013.

[thethe]

Wow you people really buy into that republican crap huh?

let me ask you this thethe do you think it's cool that A-Rod may be paying less in income tax as a percentage than you?

Athletes is a completely different situations. They don't provide anything to me that improves my life. These other CEO's and owners of companies provide me with services and investment opportunities that does in fact improve my life. I think for that in addition to the gross dollars that are paid by them is justification for this lower percentage. Sure, it could be a little higher if we was to have some semblance of equity.

My big beef with the world is that its run by the super wealthy. But these types of changes in the tax code end up hurting others much more. I'd like to believe that at some point in my life I will be upper middle class. I worked hard and got my CPA and I will be getting my MBA within the next couple of years. I've put in countless hours slaving for a public accounting firm which will open up doors into private accounting that will yield the benefits I'm looking for. I should not be penalzied for my success.

[zitothebrave]

Do you think its fair that you pay 17% while I pay 30%?

I don't pay 17% nice try.

And if I earned so little that the money I didn't have to pay in taxes went to things like gas food etc. then yeah. Unless you want more people on welfare, and you pay more taxes in that way. I guess.

[gilesfan]

Military, pensions, and healthcare primarily. AKA employing people in the federal government.

Medicaid, public assistance, corrections, transportation, Education

[Julio3000]

Why should the U.S. govt penalize me for putting money away towards my own retirement account? I will never see a dime of the thousands and thousands I've paid in social security in my lifetime. That is likely a lot more than what I have in my retirement right now. Think I paid somewhere close to 10k in social security this year. Will never see a dime of that.

Huh?

[sturg33]

Huh?

It's not a sustainable program

[gilesfan]

Huh?

You think I'm ever going to get social security? What if Im able to retire in 35 years (assuming Obama hasn't slashed every benefit of saving for retirment) If I do, what percentage will I see compared to how much I put in?

[zitothebrave]

Medicaid, public assistance, corrections, transportation, Education

Umm, you should maybe look into it a little more.

But I could expound on health care and how foolish it is. But anyway Transportation and Ed have about as much impact as interest does.

[50PoundHead]

If you're are going to penalize those that save then in essence it is the same discussion.

The IRA was established in 1986. Was everyone (myself included) penalized because we didn't have a tax break on our savings to that point?

This is just a benefit (just like about countless other benefits) that is currently agreed upon in the current political environment. It wasn't particularly well-conceived when it was implemented and it should be looked at. What would be the difference if got rid of the accounts and lowered the marginal rate? It would vary across taxpayers with some doing better and some doing worse. I guess my question--and I think it's the same question many on the right were asking about some of the goofy tax credits that were included in the 2009 stimulus package (and even as someone who supports the President, I thought a ton of those ideas were ludicrous)--is why would you reward someone for something they were going to do anyway?

[gilesfan]

The IRA was established in 1986. Was everyone (myself included) penalized because we didn't have a tax break on our savings to that point?

This is just a benefit (just like about countless other benefits) that is currently agreed upon in the current political environment. It wasn't particularly well-conceived when it was implemented and it should be looked at. What would be the difference if got rid of the accounts and lowered the marginal rate? It would vary across taxpayers with some doing better and some doing worse. I guess my question--and I think it's the same question many on the right were asking about some of the goofy tax credits that were included in the 2009 stimulus package (and even as someone who supports the President, I thought a ton of those ideas were ludicrous)--is why would you reward someone for something they were going to do anyway?

Zito, my tax dollars dont go to those items?

50, so for the last 27 years people have been putting money away toward IRAs, as much as they possibly could. (for some because pensions are going away and social security is unknown) Now the govt can go in and say "hey I know you thought this would be after-tax dollars and you would get benefits from contributing to it............but, yeah, we want to penalize you for saving. We dont take enough of your money as it is, lets take some more.")

My buddy is a city employee. He became a fire fighter. They haven't had a raise in several years and they just cut pensions. In fact, the new employees are making as much as guys that have worked there for 10 years. Now, if he was smart, he would have put money toward an IRA, but wait, we want to penalize you for that too. So now, he makes 40k per year trying to support 2 kids. Lets raise minimum wage so he pays more for supplies, cut his pension, and make it less appealing to put money away to an IRA. I guess maybe he has room under his matress to put the $5 a week he can afford to put away.

Oh wait, no....now there is a My RA to contribute to! Except that if he was ever lucky to build up to 15k, it's forced into a roth IRA (which Obama is trying to cut benefits)


Yet, it's costing him more and more to live everyday. His money goes toward the "society." He also serves his society by responding to calls when they are in need. Or when they aren't in need and just want a ride to the hospital.

[50PoundHead]

Like I said, politically it is going to be next to impossible for the government to change the treatment of money that is currently invested.

Hey, my son-in-law (stepson-in-law) is a firefighter and he's constantly fighting City Hall on pension issues. But who is exactly trying to cut firefighter/police/government worker pensions? It sure ain't the folks on the left. Your buddy's primary beef should be that he's largely funded by property taxes and the ability for jurisdictions to pay those varies dramatically. We don't do everything right in Minnesota, but the state provides some assistance to municipalities to help with those costs so that property taxes don't skyrocket. Plus, if your buddy works for a city, that city may be surrendering tax base to Tax Increment Financing and other "incentives" that largely serve as a sop to the rich.

I just think the IRA was questionable policy when it was implemented and it's really no better now. This is what happens when you mix up the tax system with social policy and consumer choice. Set up the tax system for what you need to raise in revenue and then fight out the distribution of benefit on the budget side.

[jpx7]

Why should the U.S. govt penalize me for putting money away towards my own retirement account?

The abrogation of generous and inequitable tax-breaks is not penalization.

[weso1]

How does limiting the amount of money put into retirement make sense? I guess we should have people work till they are 75, bc 70 is too young to retire and wouldn't want you to be able to live comfortably. (or leave money to children; which is already double taxed)

You're not capping the amount of money people can put in for retirement. You're capping the amount someone can put in while receiving tax benefits. And I believe in a high cap that's targeted toward only the very top earners.

A better question is why do they need tax shelters that have no benefit to the overall economy?

[gilesfan]

You're not capping the amount of money people can put in for retirement. You're capping the amount someone can put in while receiving tax benefits. And I believe in a high cap that's targeted toward only the very top earners.

A better question is why do they need tax shelters that have no benefit to the overall economy?

They are taxed on the money, either now or later, correct?

[weso1]

They are taxed on the money, either now or later, correct?

But there are tax benefits to waiting or paying it now. I don't mind placing a cap on those benefits, but the cap should be pretty high. I mean you aren't giving anyone an advantage if you have a cap.

The one area I'm concerned with is the last sentence. Is the 3.2 million a cap on total retirement savings? So say if I save up 3.2 million by the time I'm 55 then I couldn't receive anymore benefits? I think that number is way too low. So that I have a problem with, but I don't have a problem with the idea of capping tax shelters.

[gilesfan]

The benefits to later would be if your income is lower later in life.

Either way, Im sure the middle class will be the one thats ****ed.

[weso1]

The benefits to later would be if your income is lower later in life.

Either way, Im sure the middle class will be the one thats ****ed.

Yes, I'm worried about being double taxed also. Someone in the middle class or even lower class who saved for retirement becomes a top 10 percenter at retirement, relative to other retirees, and thus should be taxed double since they have more than others. I can see some liberals telling us that it's only fair to help those who have less money.

But if people know about caps ahead of time then I have no problem with it. Double taxation and total cap lowering are my concerns. I'm ok with changing the rules of the game before you play, but not right in the middle of the game.

[gilesfan]

Yes, I'm worried about being double taxed also. Someone in the middle class or even lower class who saved for retirement becomes a top 10 percenter at retirement, relative to other retirees, and thus should be taxed double since they have more than others. I can see some liberals telling us that it's only fair to help those who have less money.

But if people know about caps ahead of time then I have no problem with it. Double taxation and total cap lowering are my concerns. I'm ok with changing the rules of the game before you play, but not right in the middle of the game.

Yeah, that's my big gripe is changing the rules. Grandfathering people in makes more sense. Double taxation I'm sure is what they will do. It's already done on estates.

[Krgrecw]

Athletes is a completely different situations. They don't provide anything to me that improves my life. These other CEO's and owners of companies provide me with services and investment opportunities that does in fact improve my life. I think for that in addition to the gross dollars that are paid by them is justification for this lower percentage. Sure, it could be a little higher if we was to have some semblance of equity.

My big beef with the world is that its run by the super wealthy. But these types of changes in the tax code end up hurting others much more. I'd like to believe that at some point in my life I will be upper middle class. I worked hard and got my CPA and I will be getting my MBA within the next couple of years. I've put in countless hours slaving for a public accounting firm which will open up doors into private accounting that will yield the benefits I'm looking for. I should not be penalzied for my success.




Does anyone think that if Zito or any of his ilk were given a CEO job of a big company, they'd say 'no I don't want that much salary' 'that's to much' 'I don't want any stock or stock options'


They'd take every penny they would get...

[jpx7]

They'd take every penny they would get...

It's almost like we need rules to protect the less fortunate from fundamental human avarice ...

[Julio3000]

It's almost like we need rules to protect the less fortunate from fundamental human avarice ...

Actual snicker.

[Julio3000]

Yeah, that's my big gripe is changing the rules. Grandfathering people in makes more sense. Double taxation I'm sure is what they will do. It's already done on estates.

The estate tax exemption is what, 5 mil?

I get your larger point, but you didn't pick a really relatable example ;-)

[sturg33]

Can anyone give one single reason why there should be an estate tax?

[50PoundHead]

Can anyone give one single reason why there should be an estate tax?

Paris Hilton.

[AerchAngel]

Paris Hilton.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

[Tapate50]

Paris Hilton.

Zing!!!

[sturg33]

Paris Hilton.

I obviously know (or hope) you're kidding. But the joke is a clever way to avoid the question. Does the government have more of a right to Hilton's money than Paris?

[50PoundHead]

I obviously know (or hope) you're kidding. But the joke is a clever way to avoid the question. Does the government have more of a right to Hilton's money than Paris?

Does your humor impairment qualify you for handicapped parking?

Back to the land of seriousness. Here are several links in the same vein:

Link #1: http://www.cbpp.org/files/estatetaxmyths.pdf

Link #2: http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/civil-religion/travis-scholl/article_d3229fea-3ea5-11e0-be84-0017a4a78c22.html

Link #3: http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/why_we_should_k.html

We're just not going to agree on this one, so I'm just dropping it. You cling to this black-and-white view of the world and the problem is it's all shades of gray. gilesfan was complaining earlier about how the middle class gets screwed. Well, eliminate the estate tax and they'll get screwed again. Robert Skildesky has written a great book "How Much is Enough?" We need to ask that question more. I'm not out to soak the rich, but this notion that their wealth is somehow the result solely of their hard work and any referencing of that wealth without their consent is somehow petty jealousy borders on the ridiculous. People pay taxes. Paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. The estate tax is just another vehicle to achieve some balance in the system. I could live with getting rid of it, but in return, the marginal rates would have to be hiked to raise the same level of revenue. I get the argument that let's raise less revenue and cut the budget and I'm on board with some of that as well, but the equation has to balance.

[sturg33]

Does your humor impairment qualify you for handicapped parking?

Back to the land of seriousness. Here are several links in the same vein:

Link #1: http://www.cbpp.org/files/estatetaxmyths.pdf

Link #2: http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/civil-religion/travis-scholl/article_d3229fea-3ea5-11e0-be84-0017a4a78c22.html

Link #3: http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/why_we_should_k.html

We're just not going to agree on this one, so I'm just dropping it. You cling to this black-and-white view of the world and the problem is it's all shades of gray. gilesfan was complaining earlier about how the middle class gets screwed. Well, eliminate the estate tax and they'll get screwed again. Robert Skildesky has written a great book "How Much is Enough?" We need to ask that question more. I'm not out to soak the rich, but this notion that their wealth is somehow the result solely of their hard work and any referencing of that wealth without their consent is somehow petty jealousy borders on the ridiculous. People pay taxes. Paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. The estate tax is just another vehicle to achieve some balance in the system. I could live with getting rid of it, but in return, the marginal rates would have to be hiked to raise the same level of revenue. I get the argument that let's raise less revenue and cut the budget and I'm on board with some of that as well, but the equation has to balance.

So you're cool with double taxes, then?

[gilesfan]

The problem with the estate tax is that it is double taxation. I agree with Strugg, what is the reasoning for being able to tax twice?

I don't buy the argument that the reason to keep it is bc U.S. tax laws force people to donate to charities. "hey lets get the screwed up estate tax bc it forces people to give their money away!"

[50PoundHead]

So you're cool with double taxes, then?

We double tax all the time. This is no different than the other double taxing we do. Read the "myth" link.

[sturg33]

We double tax all the time. This is no different than the other double taxing we do. Read the "myth" link.

You didn't answer what I asked. I asked if you're cool with double taxation? Do you think that's right?

[yeezus]

You didn't answer what I asked. I asked if you're cool with double taxation? Do you think that's right?

This is where you need to read between the lines and stop being so obtuse. Clearly he doesn't despise double taxation the way you do, and what he's said so far and the arguments he's making ESTABLISHES THAT. But you always just harp on one question instead of addressing what he said, like it somehow proves your point. A well-thought out argument makes a point, not regurgitating a question that has been answered in an un-black and white way, but you seem to only think in black and white. At times.

[zitothebrave]

I'm fine with ditching the estate tax on non-cash inheritance. Land house stock etc. You pay taxes on when you try to redeem or when you inherit anyway.

[sturg33]

This is where you need to read between the lines and stop being so obtuse. Clearly he doesn't despise double taxation the way you do, and what he's said so far and the arguments he's making ESTABLISHES THAT. But you always just harp on one question instead of addressing what he said, like it somehow proves your point. A well-thought out argument makes a point, not regurgitating a question that has been answered in an un-black and white way, but you seem to only think in black and white. At times.

Calm down there guy. It's a simple question that I'm not clear on his answer. You seem to have a big problem answering simple questions.

Asking if he's cool with double taxation is a reasonable question, no? His answer was simply that "we've done it before." Well that doesn't make it right and doesn't mean he supports it.

If he does support it, I'd like to know why he thinks that's fair to individuals. All I've seen so far is that we do it on other things so we can do it on that too.

[weso1]

Sturg has a point. Sometimes I read between the lines and all I get is the finger.

[jpx7]

Calm down there guy. It's a simple question that I'm not clear on his answer. You seem to have a big problem answering simple questions.

You have to admit: you often ask these "simple questions" in a way that obfuscates, overly reduces, or distracts from the actual point, and then – when you don't receive a "simple answer" phrased in the exact terms of the initial "simple question" – you act as if you've caught the poster(s) in some sort of logic-trap.

I'm sure some of your "simple questions" are actual good-faith queries, but a lot of them send my Admiral Ackbar Alarm ringing.

[The Chosen One]

I'm sure some of your "simple questions" are actual good-faith queries, but a lot of them send my Admiral Akbar Alarm ringing.
:icwudt:

[Hawk]

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,-------------------,_ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;\ . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-----,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’---, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ \ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . \ :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : \ :\ ||/ /,-‘-‘x### ::\ \ ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . \/ /--‘’’’ : \ #\ : :\ : : \ :\ \| | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : :\ ‘-#\ : \, : :\ :\ \ \ : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ \ \ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’---------’ \ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: :,/\ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\,/ /|\\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’--, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ \ \ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\\’|\\ \|/ ‘/ / :: :_---,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : :\ \, . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| \ |\ : |/\ :: ::-----, :\/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’--,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’---,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,---‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,---’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
. : : : : : : :¯’’------------’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :

[sturg33]

You have to admit: you often ask these "simple questions" in a way that obfuscates, overly reduces, or distracts from the actual point, and then – when you don't receive a "simple answer" phrased in the exact terms of the initial "simple question" – you act as if you've caught the poster(s) in some sort of logic-trap.

I'm sure some of your "simple questions" are actual good-faith queries, but a lot of them send my Admiral Ackbar Alarm ringing.

Are you OK with double tax? If so, why? And do you think the government has more of a right to a family's money than the family?

[50PoundHead]

You didn't answer what I asked. I asked if you're cool with double taxation? Do you think that's right?

I don't have a problem with it. If you're a non-itemizer, you're pay a tax on a tax fairly regularly.

Here's the deal in my mind and while it's not in my mind alone, I'm not going to say it's right or wrong because it infers a value system that I don't see as appropriate to the discussion. The bottom line of any tax system is to raise revenue. That's it in a nutshell. The decisions made in raising that revenue are both political and pragmatic. The estate tax brings some measure of progressivity to the system overall, which I view as a good thing (and you do not). There are other ways to bring progressivity into the system and they should probably be explored.

I'd gladly ditch the estate tax and instead have capital gains (which is usually huge chunk of large estates) taxed as regular income (and I'd even allow an inflation adjustment that could be deducted from the total gain to determine the net capital gain). My guess is the uber-rich affected by the estate tax would rather pay the estate tax than have their capital gains taxed as normal income. I don't know that for sure because I haven't seen any analysis to determine the tax distribution on such a proposed change. And my guess is people who are exempt from the estate tax (about 98% of estates) certainly don't want to have their capital gains taxed as normal income, so this particular proposal is dead in the water.

sturg33, what I guess I'm saying is that there is no such thing as pure tax policy (just like there isn't pure policy in about everything else). It's a set of compromises. Please don't take this as an ad hominem attack on you and other libertarians, but the problem I have with your approach is that you seem to abhor any compromise and the world simply doesn't move forward without it. You can cling to broad principle--we all do--but you don't get anywhere if you don't put gas in the car and compromise is the gas that runs the machine. I can't remember if it was Lenin or Boris Badenov, but the quote goes something like "you can't make an omelet if you don't break any eggs."

PS--Anticipating your likely response to my suggestion to treat capital gains as income. When you cash in a gain and go to spend it, the clerk at the counter doesn't ask you where the money came from. He doesn't say, "These dollars came from a realized capital gain. They aren't worth as much as other dollars." Yet the current tax system gives them preferential treatment. Again, I'm not saying that is "right" or "wrong." It's the result of a political decision where one side had more compelling graphs and charts than the other.