zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
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?
No one talking about My RA?
- Thread starter gilesfan
- Start date
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 know where that money goes to? Have you seen breakdowns of where it goes? I assume not.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Lol that's funny. What's funny is you probably think that's a good "burn"
Do you think its fair that you pay 17% while I pay 30%?
sturg33
I
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
Connoisseur of Minors
Military, pensions, and healthcare primarily. AKA employing people in the federal government.
sturg33
I
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.
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
Connoisseur of Minors
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.
Medicaid, public assistance, corrections, transportation, Education
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Huh?
sturg33
I
It's not a sustainable program
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
Connoisseur of Minors
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
Hessmania Forever
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
Hessmania Forever
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.
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
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
The abrogation of generous and inequitable tax-breaks is not penalization.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
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?