The solution to fixing the tax code... in Political Science Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

The solution to fixing the tax code...

Author

Comment

TwinsBrewersWorldSeries

The solution to fixing the tax code...

Lead

[-]

Posts: 1021

December 26, 2012 9:37 AM

Tags : None

All taxpayers must pay a rate (minimum) of 10% on ALL income (includes pensions, military, social security, etc...)
All taxpayers making $1 million or more must pay a rate (minimum) of 25% of ALL income above $1 million (included dividends, capital gains, etc..)

National law capping spending at 20% of GDP.

That would balance the budget.

Next...

"The Cardinals fashion themselves as the keepers of baseball etiquette....That was uncalled for. It's just bush league, that's what it is. Bush league. ....Once again, they're nothing if not predictable, complain about everything, but that's Cardinal's baseball."

Reply Quote

Advertisement
	Remove this ad Remove this ad

BAJJERFAN

#1

[-]

Posts: 8646

December 26, 2012 10:01 AM

Does anyone know how much of a current soc sec benefit is original contrib and how much is "earned"? Or even how to find out?

"I knew Jack Schitt. Jack Schitt was a friend of mine and believe me you're no Jack Schitt".

Reply Quote

TwinsBrewersWorldSeries

#2

[-]

Posts: 1021

December 26, 2012 10:09 AM

Great question BAjjerfan. To do that, you'd need to know someone's "income" per year, for every year of the highest 35 years of their earning history. You'd need to know the inflation rate, and you'd need to know each year of benefit provided.

"The Cardinals fashion themselves as the keepers of baseball etiquette....That was uncalled for. It's just bush league, that's what it is. Bush league. ....Once again, they're nothing if not predictable, complain about everything, but that's Cardinal's baseball."

Reply Quote

BAJJERFAN

#3

[-]

Posts: 8646

December 26, 2012 10:47 AM

TwinsBrewersWorldSeries wrote:
Great question BAjjerfan. To do that, you'd need to know someone's "income" per year, for every year of the highest 35 years of their earning history. You'd need to know the inflation rate, and you'd need to know each year of benefit provided.

What is SS's formula for determining benefits? Any part of the current benefit that is original contribution should not be taxed, since it was already taxed once.

"I knew Jack Schitt. Jack Schitt was a friend of mine and believe me you're no Jack Schitt".

Reply Quote

TwinsBrewersWorldSeries

#4

[-]

Posts: 1021

December 26, 2012 10:52 AM

I am good with that. My problem is... (just guessing) is that someone who makes $30-35k (or more) on average per year in their career will get less back from Social Security, and will be taxed on ALL of their benefit, since they also likely saved in a 401k/403b etc...

Someone who made $30-35k or less per year, probably gets MORE than they paid in over their life, and they are not taxed on anything since they didn't save anything.

So in effect, Social Security double taxes people who are getting screwed by the system already. I am OK with getting less back, and am OK with paying more in taxes, but i'm getting sick and tired of the poor getting more freebees all the time that boost their disposable income over the middle class that works their ass off only to pay higher taxes for the freebees for the poor

"The Cardinals fashion themselves as the keepers of baseball etiquette....That was uncalled for. It's just bush league, that's what it is. Bush league. ....Once again, they're nothing if not predictable, complain about everything, but that's Cardinal's baseball."

Reply Quote

badgerjon66

#5

[-]

Posts: 3509

December 26, 2012 11:00 AM

"
"What is SS's formula for determining benefits?" It may take some digging but IIRC the formula is based on your highest "x" # of earnings quarters, with 40 quarters minimum needed to qualify.

I calculated once, and if I could have taken my SS contributions plus my employers' matching and invested them very conservatively I would have a lot, lot more than I am now receiving from SS., plus leaving the balance to my estate. That's why Bush's plan for allowing a voluntary privatization of a small part of SS contributions was great, but of course the press totally misrepresented it as pri9vatizing the entire program. Not that it would not be a boon for all those who work.

the tax code proposed above would be great for everyone except those who prefer govt. dependence, Those who work for IRS, Congress members who sell tax breaks, and of course an army of lawyers and accountants who would be forced to find honest work.

Reply Quote

BAJJERFAN

#6

[-]

Posts: 8646

December 26, 2012 11:48 AM

badgerjon66 wrote:
"
"What is SS's formula for determining benefits?" It may take some digging but IIRC the formula is based on your highest "x" # of earnings quarters, with 40 quarters minimum needed to qualify.

I calculated once, and if I could have taken my SS contributions plus my employers' matching and invested them very conservatively I would have a lot, lot more than I am now receiving from SS., plus leaving the balance to my estate. That's why Bush's plan for allowing a voluntary privatization of a small part of SS contributions was great, but of course the press totally misrepresented it as pri9vatizing the entire program. Not that it would not be a boon for all those who work.

the tax code proposed above would be great for everyone except those who prefer govt. dependence, Those who work for IRS, Congress members who sell tax breaks, and of course an army of lawyers and accountants who would be forced to find honest work.

I'm aware of that. I was just wondering if it was something like 0.4x1y3b1z times the total amount contrib on your behalf. Right now the taxable amount is pretty small and Iowa is even phasing it out altogether. I assume if it ever gets taxed at 10% that it will be withheld and show up in your 1099-SSA.

"I knew Jack Schitt. Jack Schitt was a friend of mine and believe me you're no Jack Schitt".

Reply Quote

BigAppleBucky

#7

[-]

Posts: 10962

December 27, 2012 2:37 PM

(1) Average social security monthly check: $1,239

(2) Percentage of households receiving SS in which SS represents majority of household income: 65%

(3) Percentage of households receiving SS in which SS represents more than 90% of household income: 36%

I'd like to see some of these DC "austerity" types try to live on $1200 a month for, say, a month.

Reply Quote

Advertisement
	Remove this ad

LumpyWideAss

#8

[-]

Posts: 6625

December 27, 2012 2:51 PM

The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking.

BigAppleBucky wrote:

I'd like to see some of these DC "austerity" types try to live on $1200 a month for, say, a month.

IIRC, it was never meant to be the sole source of retirement income.
#planahead

As I rained blows upon him, I realized there had to be another way.

Reply Quote

kr0p0tkin

#9

[-]

Posts: 2465

December 27, 2012 2:55 PM

LumpyWideAss wrote:
BigAppleBucky wrote:
I'd like to see some of these DC "austerity" types try to live on $1200 a month for, say, a month.
IIRC, it was never meant to be the sole source of retirement income.
#planahead

That was the worst selective quoting EVAR. BAB's sentence prior to the one you quoted:
(3) Percentage of households receiving SS in which SS represents more than 90% of household income: 36%

Reply Quote

Madgrad

#10

[-]

Posts: 338

December 27, 2012 3:01 PM

Well, it isn't progressive enough for me. But it is a start. Taxing all income at 10% would lessen work incentives at low income levels. That's why, back when there was some consistency in right-wing theory, the earned income tax credit was considered a conservative solution to poverty. You could tweak by taking into account the cost of living. I agree that dividends and wages should be taxed equally.

Reply Quote

BigAppleBucky

More from the New Yorker

#11

[-]

Posts: 10962

December 27, 2012 3:50 PM

The only way that Social Security and Medicare can go “bankrupt” is if we let them.

So why are politicians obsessed with the question of solvency? Because it makes cutting entitlements seem inevitable, rather than a political choice. After all, if you’re in favor of cutting entitlements, that means you’re in favor of spending less money taking care of old people. That’s a tenable position, but it’s politically dicey—particularly for Republicans, since the elderly are among their biggest supporters. It’s far more palatable to argue that we simply have to cut benefits, because otherwise the programs will go bankrupt. That’s why when, in 2011, Paul Ryan introduced a plan to effectively replace Medicare with a voucher system he said that he was doing so in order to preserve Medicare for future generations. Hand-wringing about Medicare and Social Security going bust allows Republicans, paradoxically, to portray themselves not as opponents of entitlement spending but, rather, as its saviors.

This isn’t just a rhetorical problem. It leads to terrible policy. You can see that in the current debate over the proposal to raise the age of Medicare eligibility from sixty-five to sixty-seven, a proposal that, some have suggested, President Obama may agree to as part of a fiscal-cliff deal. This is not a good idea: though it would save taxpayers close to six billion dollars a year, it would raise over-all health-care spending by more than eleven billion dollars a year, according to an estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (That’s because Medicare is better at holding down costs than private insurance, and because the out-of-pocket costs for ineligible seniors would rise.) Sure, it would extend the life of Medicare, but that’s meaningless on its own: you could extend the life of Medicare indefinitely if you restricted it to people over eighty-five, but that doesn’t mean it’s smart to do so. Only an obsession with the trust fund makes kicking people off Medicare seem like a rational approach to our health-care problems.

Reply Quote

yanked

#12

[-]

Posts: 17588

December 27, 2012 6:11 PM

BigAppleBucky wrote:
The only way that Social Security and Medicare can go “bankrupt” is if we let them.

No shit? Sound like awesome programs!!!! Maybe we should burn them and try something new, anyone thought of that? SS and Medicare are not good programs for our future, maybe they were great when gimpy instituted them but they are now outdated. Our social programs need to evolve over time, this isn't a time where we have 20 workers for every one beneficiary, we are currently about 2:1. The drafters of these policies were too ignorant to see this coming, our govt as currently structured is filled with morons incapable of making simple change to adapt to this reality. SS and Medicare do not work and should not be forced to work by receiving trillions in bailouts. The need for endless more dollars is proof that the new deal programs are a total farce. FDR is a clown for ruining the financial future of this county, it's all dead money, zero growth, zero value.

As I suspected, progressives have a Koch Fetish.

Reply Quote

BigAppleBucky

#13

[-]

Posts: 10962

December 27, 2012 6:46 PM

Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

The solution to fixing the tax code...

The solution to fixing the tax code...