quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Now that was really dickish!. How by any stretch or measure is what I posted showing a lack of character?. I understand your pissed, you look very uninformed.

Sorry if you feel insulted however it was you who said I seemed to lack understanding even though the only thing I posted were facts. I still contend that responding the way you did shows a lack of character.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: There is an assumption on this forum that if you didn't support Romney and the Republicans, you must be poor and getting money from the government. Strange, because life is not black and white, but politics on this forum seems to be.

X2

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Sadly, SS is not only viewed as an "entitlement," but it ignores the fact that many were forced to pay into it for years under the promise that someday it would take care of them - now these people are being viewed as parasites. Apparently, some people's relatives aren't collecting a check? Or, is it that they aren't willing to carry the burden that falls on all of us to support the nation's elderly? I have a mother and two in-laws on SS and they worked all of their lives, paid taxes, and supported others who were on SS. Now that it's their turn, I fail to see them as greedy parasites.

Ditto, even those of us that are on disability who paid into the system for decade upon decades are considered leaches. Even though we paid into the system.

What I see now are kids, just out of high school getting on disability with any kind of fake problem they can think of to live for free. Now that is taxing the system with people who never paid their fair share but want something for nothing.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Sadly, SS is not only viewed as an "entitlement," but it ignores the fact that many were forced to pay into it for years under the promise that someday it would take care of them - now these people are being viewed as parasites. Apparently, some people's relatives aren't collecting a check? Or, is it that they aren't willing to carry the burden that falls on all of us to support the nation's elderly? I have a mother and two in-laws on SS and they worked all of their lives, paid taxes, and supported others who were on SS. Now that it's their turn, I fail to see them as greedy parasites.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Sadly, SS is not only viewed as an "entitlement," but it ignores the fact that many were forced to pay into it for years under the promise that someday it would take care of them - now these people are being viewed as parasites. Apparently, some people's relatives aren't collecting a check? Or, is it that they aren't willing to carry the burden that falls on all of us to support the nation's elderly? I have a mother and two in-laws on SS and they worked all of their lives, paid taxes, and supported others who were on SS. Now that it's their turn, I fail to see them as greedy parasites.

Amen.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Sadly, SS is not only viewed as an "entitlement," but it ignores the fact that many were forced to pay into it for years under the promise that someday it would take care of them - now these people are being viewed as parasites.

Say it with me ... O-bama-C are.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: X2

X2

No, there is an assumption that if you support socialist politicians and socialist policies that you MIGHT be a socialist. Maybe you just don't know it.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: SS has two problems. ... Two, because of the "baby boomer" generation retiring, there are more people collecting than paying in. This is why SS is such a big issue, and it will only get worse.

If we had made interest on the earlier more people paying in, instead of politician spending it, would that have been a problem ? If we did not sanction the killing of unborn babies, who would also pay in, would that have been a problem ?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: If we had made interest on the earlier more people paying in, instead of politician spending it, would that have been a problem ? If we did not sanction the killing of unborn babies, who would also pay in, would that have been a problem ?

No fan of abortion but my gut reaction is that the vast majority of aborted people would be yet a further strain on the tax payers, not contributors.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: Sadly, SS is not only viewed as an "entitlement," but it ignores the fact that many were forced to pay into it for years under the promise that someday it would take care of them - now these people are being viewed as parasites. Apparently, some people's relatives aren't collecting a check? Or, is it that they aren't willing to carry the burden that falls on all of us to support the nation's elderly? I have a mother and two in-laws on SS and they worked all of their lives, paid taxes, and supported others who were on SS. Now that it's their turn, I fail to see them as greedy parasites.

If you don't like the word "entitlement" call it a "benefit." It doesn't alter the numbers. It's part of mandatory spending along with all other government paid benefits.

Social Security is and always has been a Ponzi scheme. It only works as long as the workforce continues to grow so taxes paid in today are enough to cover benefits paid out today. We're now drawing down on the "trust fund" and it's only a matter of time before the entire program is bankrupt. Even the "trust fund" is a lie. It only exists on paper as the money that goes into Social Security is used to buy bonds, which finance government debt.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-02-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: No fan of abortion but my gut reaction is that the vast majority of aborted people would be yet a further strain on the tax payers, not contributors.

Perhaps, on the welfare dime. Not on the social security dime. Majority might be a stretch.

Obama has never passed a budget yet in his term. Wanna take any bets on if he has ANY budget in the next ? Course he wont, because he could never live up to any he would pass. Hes like a madman with a checking account, blank checks to write and never bothers to balance it. He like the cartoon where they think he can keep writing checks because he has them. Doesnt matter theres no money in it.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Obama has never passed a budget yet in his term. Wanna take any bets on if he has ANY budget in the next ? Course he wont, because he could never live up to any he would pass. Hes like a madman with a checking account, blank checks to write and never bothers to balance it. He like the cartoon where they think he can keep writing checks because he has them. Doesnt matter theres no money in it.

Politicians know their power lies in spending. They won't cut spending because of that.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: If we had made interest on the earlier more people paying in, instead of politician spending it, would that have been a problem ? If we did not sanction the killing of unborn babies, who would also pay in, would that have been a problem ?

It's common sense that an unwanted child, in general, wouldn't grow up in a very good environment.

These are not the kids that go to college and get good jobs.

the fact that SS gets borrowed against to pay for other stuff clearly shows it is NOT part of the problem.

I understand many dont like SS. doesnt change the fact that it is working pretty damn good. even with so many trying their damndest to break it.

SS is not an entitlement. it is booked sepereatly. and has no place in any negotiation. it stands on it own. and stands well.

but, I do understand the idea that not having to pay it back for the monies borrowed to pay for unpaid wars would make life easier for the liars and the cheats. gonna pay for them wars yet? didnt think so. cry about everything but where the money actually went.....

Politicians in this country anyway are nothing but thieves, and seeing how they have stolen the moneys that were earmarked for the SS system. And not paid any of it back, EVER they are nothing but thieves.

Now what was this thread about?

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

Well, isn't THIS interesting?

IRS aims to clarify investment income tax under healthcare law

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Well, isn't THIS interesting? IRS aims to clarify investment income tax under healthcare law

What I find more interesting, pertaining to the thread topic, is this. Costco's Dividend Tax Epiphany.

quote When President Obama needed a business executive to come to his campaign defense, Jim Sinegal was there. The Costco COST -0.24% co-founder, director and former CEO even made a prime-time speech at the Democratic Party convention in Charlotte. So what a surprise this week to see that Mr. Sinegal and the rest of the Costco board voted to give themselves a special dividend to avoid Mr. Obama's looming tax increase. Is this what the President means by "tax fairness"?

Along the lines of your interesting article, ...

quote Specifically, the giant retailer announced Wednesday that the company will pay a special dividend of $7 a share this month. That's a $3 billion Christmas gift for shareholders that will let them be taxed at the current dividend rate of 15%, rather than next year's rate of up to 43.4%—an increase to 39.6% as the Bush-era rates expire plus another 3.8% from the new ObamaCare surcharge.

By the way, the Costco board also includes at least two other prominent tub-thumpers for higher taxes— William Gates Sr. and Charles Munger.

quote It lost. Mr. Munger is Warren Buffett's longtime Sancho Panza at Berkshire Hathaway and has spoken approvingly of a value-added tax that would stick it to the middle class.

What the defenders on Nobama do not realize is, is the folly of their arguments. Sure, the Ultra Rich will still invest. Just as people kept going to places which had gooberment bans on smoking. In many of the non smoking vemues, business dropped, but then leveled out. As people had nowhere else to go. However, when given a choice, smokers went to venues which allowed them to be free. I have been to many places, have to go (work) in which smoking was allowed outside say a city/jurisdictional line. Guess where I went.
People bemoan the fact that jobs are outsourced. They like to blame the companies. It is gooberment policy which drives jobs to be outsourced. The ultra rich have a choice ! The rich will invest. It will be less of an investment in the US economy.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 12-04-2012).]

still stroking it, eh?......

again - what is wrong with the Reagan Tax Rates?

they seemed to work well, didnt they?

keep stomping the baby feetz.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: still stroking it, eh?...... again - what is wrong with the Reagan Tax Rates? they seemed to work well, didnt they?

I thought I was the dullest knife in the economic drawer.
The Reagan tax rates, ..., , ... caused short term harm. Their purpose was to re-value the dollar, to fight inflation.
Why isn't Nobama championing the Reagan tax rates ? The answer is, he is busy devaluing the dollar and really couldn't give a hoot as long as he has a never ending supply.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: If you don't like the word "entitlement" call it a "benefit." It doesn't alter the numbers. It's part of mandatory spending along with all other government paid benefits. Social Security is and always has been a Ponzi scheme. It only works as long as the workforce continues to grow so taxes paid in today are enough to cover benefits paid out today. We're now drawing down on the "trust fund" and it's only a matter of time before the entire program is bankrupt. Even the "trust fund" is a lie. It only exists on paper as the money that goes into Social Security is used to buy bonds, which finance government debt.

I call it an obligation. Yes, I agree, it's a Ponzi scheme just like your 401 K, your health insurance, your home insurance, the money in your checking account, (even the stock market in a round about manner). All of them require the influx of new money to meet future obligations.

quote Originally posted by carnut122: .. a Ponzi scheme just like your 401 K, your health insurance, your home insurance, the money in your checking account, (even the stock market in a round about manner). All of them require the influx of new money to meet future obligations.

How so?
(remember--you used the word "your"--instead of "some one else's influx")

quote Originally posted by cliffw: The answer is, he is busy devaluing the dollar and really couldn't give a hoot as long as he has a never ending supply.

Do you really think that he and all his advisors are really that clueless of the situation, as well as the reprecussions?

No--they aren't 'clueless" and are fully aware of the possible reprecussions. They simply don't care in the short term, figuring that it will be sorted out by someone else in the long run and THOSE folks and their constituents will have to deal with the reprecussions. Such is politics and the mindset of politicians. But when it comes to currency, the chickens always come home to roost eventually, and the henhouse then becomes a slimy, stinkin place no one wants to be in.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-04-2012).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: How so? (remember--you used the word "your"--instead of "some one else's influx")

If you look again, I did not specify the new money has to come from the original source, but it can. All of my examples are dependent on "new" money to pay old obligations. Which one in particular would you like me to address?

You compared (Our) bank accounts, IRAs, insurances and stock portfolios to the SS ponzi scheme, in which SS relies 100% on younger OPM to make our individual accounts viable when WE reach retirement age.

I'm just wondering if you'd care to share the secret of how you got a bunch of 20 something year olds, to deposit their money in your bank account, buy stock for ya, pay your insurance premiums, and contribute to YOUR IRA.
I'm waiting.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Do you really think that he and all his advisors are really that clueless of the situation, as well as the reprecussions?

What I think doesn't matter. It is what he is doing.

Now back to the Post subject. Bush tax cuts were created to help the Job Creators create jobs. Well it's been 12 yrs now, 8 yrs with Bush and 4 with Obama. Job creators don't create jobs because they get a tax break. They create jobs when there is a demand on there product. If I had a multimillion dollar business, I wouldn't hire more employees unless I had work for them, not because I got a tax break. But I wouldn't complain about the Tax Break.

quote Originally posted by bonzo: Bush tax cuts were created to help the Job Creators create jobs. Well it's been 12 yrs now, 8 yrs with Bush and 4 with Obama.

The problem with the Bush tax cuts, hmm, was that the rich got tax breaks. Yet so did the middle class. The Bush tax breaks that Nobama wants to keep. It would have been hard to create jobs during the Bush regime. Unemployment was low but jobs were created. Higher paying jobs. Jobs you needed college for, for the most part.
'Ya know, the dumbs are wailing now about how if the middle class don't get to keep their social security tax break, that Nobama gave them, that it will be that less money which can go into the economy. Say what ? How does that same logic not apply to the Bush tax breaks ?

quote Originally posted by bonzo: Job creators don't create jobs because they get a tax break.

Nobama didn't get the memo evidently. He has, ?, a number of tax enticements for hiring people.
We don't have a tax/revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Actually a few. Including keeping politician's hands off of allocated moneys, which they do so as they don't have to campaign for tax hikes.

Time to debunk one of rayb's favorite fantasies...

Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate

A liberal article of faith that confiscatory taxes fed the postwar boom turns out to be an Edsel of an economic idea.

By PETER SCHIFF

Democratic Party leaders, President Obama in particular, are forever telling the country that wealthy Americans are taxed at too low a rate and pay too little in taxes. The need to correct this seeming injustice is framed not simply in terms of fairness. Higher tax rates on the wealthy, we're told, would help balance the budget, allow for more "investment" in America's future and foster better economic growth for all. In support of this claim, like-minded liberal pundits point out that in the 1950s, when America's economic might was at its zenith, the rich faced tax rates as high as 91%.

True enough, the top marginal income-tax rate in the 1950s was much higher than today's top rate of 35%—but the share of income paid by the wealthiest Americans has essentially remained flat since then.

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today.

In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)

In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans—genuinely wealthy by the standards of the day—paid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.

In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.

The changes came about not so much by movements in rates but by the addition of tax credits for the poor and the elimination of exemptions for the wealthy. In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government. Those nostalgic for 1950s-era "tax fairness" should bear this in mind.

The tax code of the 1950s allowed upper-income Americans to take exemptions and deductions that are unheard of today. Tax shelters were widespread, and not just for the superrich. The working wealthy—including doctors, lawyers, business owners and executives—were versed in the art of creating losses to lower their tax exposure.

For instance, a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership. Huge numbers of professionals signed up for all kinds of money-losing schemes. Today, a corresponding doctor earning $500,000 can deduct a maximum of $3,000 from his taxable income, no matter how large the loss.

Those 1950s gambits lowered tax liabilities but dissuaded individuals from engaging in the more beneficial activities of increasing their incomes and expanding their businesses. As a result, they were a net drag on the economy. When Ronald Reagan finally lowered rates in the 1980s, he did so in exchange for scrapping uneconomical deductions. When business owners stopped trying to figure out how to lose money, the economy boomed.

It's hard to determine how much otherwise taxable income disappeared through tax shelters in the 1950s. As a result, direct comparisons between the 1950s and now are difficult. However, it is worth noting that from 1958 to 2010, the taxes paid by the top 3% of earners, as a percentage of total personal income (which can't be reduced by shelters), increased to 3.96% from 2.72%, while the percentage paid by the bottom two-thirds of filers fell to 0.51% in 2010 from 2.7%. This starker division of relative tax burdens can be explained by the inability of upper-income groups to shelter income.

It is a testament to the shallow nature of the national economic conversation that higher tax rates can be justified by reference to a fantasy—a 91% marginal rate that hardly any top earners paid.

In reality, tax policies that diminish the incentives and capacities of innovators, business owners and investors will not spur economic improvement. Such policies will, however, satisfy the instincts of those who want to "stick it to the rich." Never mind that the rich have already been stuck fairly well.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-07-2012).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Never mind that the rich have already been stuck fairly well.

A moment of silence for Buffett.

BTW, if Buffett really was serious, why doesn't he just write the government a check?

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Nobama didn't get the memo evidently. He has, ?, a number of tax enticements for hiring people. We don't have a tax/revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Actually a few. Including keeping politician's hands off of allocated moneys, which they do so as they don't have to campaign for tax hikes.

You keep pointing to Obama. You know we have three branches of Government, to keep each other in check. What we are really talking about is Economics. Whose political affilliation helps the USA propser is up for debate. You are right about the spending problem. Why did Clinton do so well and Bush send us on a down spiral? This is pure economics. Facts. Bush tax cuts = less revenue. Now add the Iraq war. Disaster in the making, that will take years to recover from. Clinton didn't have a multibillion dollar war to pay for. How do we recover? Bring the boys home and return the taxes to pre Bush Era. And that will still take years to pull out of this mess. Economics not politics

[This message has been edited by bonzo (edited 12-07-2012).]

quote Originally posted by bonzo: You keep pointing to Obama. You know we have three branches of Government, to keep each other in check.

You make it sound so simple. Nobama has the bully pulpit. The three branches of gooberment work for us. Yet, ..., Nobama portrays the repugs as the party on no. A PR campaign. He scolded the Supreme Court justices at a State of the Union address.
If you notice what was said in the quote of mine that you used, I mentioned that we have a spending problem. Nobama, when asked to raise the debt ceiling as a Senator, was against it. Nobama lambasted Bush's spending as unpatriotic. Nobama has spent more than Bush did in eight years in just four. And he wants more. He wants an unlimited debt ceiling, at his calling.

quote Originally posted by bonzo: Whose political affilliation helps the USA propser is up for debate.

I was gonna rip into you but, ... what do you mean by prosper, . ?

quote Originally posted by bonzo: You keep pointing to Obama. You know we have three branches of Government, to keep each other in check.

Yeah, about that...

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: A moment of silence for Buffett. BTW, if Buffett really was serious, why doesn't he just write the government a check?

Dude, that's what I've been saying all along! Just write a #%$%^ check!

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-08-2012).]