[Whitley]

Originally Posted by Battlebasset

And for Europe, they are able to do that in part because we cover a good chunk of their defense.

There was a recent politician who was addressing the issue of our paying for other, wealthy countries defense. Wish there would have been bi partisan cooperation.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by defrey12

That would all be fine and good if your example held water, but it doesn’t. You don’t actually think that REAL ESTATE is included in this equation, do you? It has always been taxed independently by county taxing authorities and has never been part of the income tax equation.

Real estate BECOMES INCOME when it is sold.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

Just a guess here, but probably more than 99% of TV residents depend on Medicare and Social Security and yet vote for those who have this “dream” to eliminate both.

Perhaps we are looking for a better, fairer way. Perhaps a flat income that starts at a certain income?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

Just a guess here, but probably more than 99% of TV residents depend on Medicare and Social Security and yet vote for those who have this “dream” to eliminate both.

Yes, that is a paradox - the act of voting AGAINST your OWN self-interest. That requires a seriously good PROPAGANDA machine to pull that off........I am looking at you------ Mr. Bimbaugh and Mr. Cluckums.!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Whitley

How does one start a new post?

I believe that the correct term would be new THREAD. A thread is a collection of related individual POSTS,

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by cherylncliff

The act includes getting rid of payroll taxes, which fund social security and Medicare. It talks about reallocating part of the new taxes to cover those programs but not how much would be reallocatd. This is a very regressive tax that hits lower income wage earners.

Yes......truth

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

i agree with the wisdom of the last part of the last sentence (and some of the earlier sentences). The problem today is / was highlighted by Warren Buffet when he said that HIS SECRETARY pays more into the Federal government than HE does.

That erroneous claim has been thoroughly debunked. Yes, her "marginal" tax rate was a bit higher (because she paid income taxes and he paid capital gains taxes), but after her standard deductions, she paid a significantly LOWER rate than he did...

Add to that, Buffett paid "$millions$" in taxes, so his secretary NEVER paid MORE in taxes to the Federal Government than he did...

Change the IRS brackets and the percentages back to the 1950s level when the RICH paid their FAIR share.

Again, this false claim has been thoroughly debunked. While the "marginal" tax rates for the "rich in the 50's may have been higher, the "effective" (the amount they actually paid) was much lower than today's effective rates...

I've explained this to you on multiple occasions, even giving links (per the IRS) to prove my point.

And no one would have to make proposals like the FAIR Tax conspiracy, because they would be NOT taken seriously. They ARE taken seriously today because (even though FLAT / jokingly FAIR tax is ludicrous) is that the Federal tax percentages have become RELATIVELY FLAT and that hurts the middle class. If you HATE the IRS it is because you are rich and want to become richer (and screw the middle class, which barely exists today) ( b because the RICH moved it over to China. I have never had a problem with the IRS other than when they don't have enough personnel to go after ALL the RICH Bernie Madoff-types that are Vampire Squids around the necks of the now vanishing middle class. And that's the TRUTH !!!!!

No, I hate the IRS because they have screwed up our taxes for the past 3 years, claiming we owe them money (that has been paid) and demanding interest and penalties even though we have proof that the required taxes have been paid in a timely manner...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by petsetc

In high school in the 60s we learned that this is a type of regressive taxation designed to shift the burden from the wealthy to the poor.

i.e, i f I earn $40K to support my family, I spend every penny of it and pay tax on every penny spent. I have nothing to save and grow. BUT if I earn $400K to support my family and I spend (lets say) 200K living well and pay taxes at the same rate as the first guy on what I spent, I have left over $200K to invest and grow...and grow...and grow. And I can pass that on to my heirs forever because they won't have to work or pay an inheritance tax. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer!

FWIW In 1944, the top rate peaked at 94 percent on taxable income over $200,000 ($2.5 million in today's dollars)

History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2023

I suggest you research the difference between "Marginal vs Effective" tax rates...

[JMintzer]

///

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Most likely you have to go to other countries for that answer .....probably ones like Sweden, Finland, Norway, and New Zealand. The US was first designed so that each generation had to make it on its own. The colonists ran away from the KINGS of OLD Europe and now maybe the pendulum has swung back.

Wait a sec...

Aren't you always claiming how Scandinavian countries (like Sweden) had a much better economic system than we do?

But now (with their VAT and high consumption taxes), all of a sudden they don't?

[Battlebasset]

Originally Posted by Whitley

Perhaps we are looking for a better, fairer way. Perhaps a flat income that starts at a certain income?

Any unwinding of SS/Medicare would have to take into account those older folks that have been paying into it all those years. They would have to be allowed to continue on that, while younger folks would be allowed to keep some or all of what they would now pay into SS. It would require a tax to fund all of those still on the old system, until they passed and were off of it. And taxes later on to pay for those that did not earn enough/did not plan well in the form of welfare/Medicaid.

As for a flat tax, the way to address would be to allow a certain amount of income to be exempt, say the first $40,000 of household income, $10,000 per family member, etc. After that, all income is taxed at say, 10%. No mortgage deduction, no property tax deductions, no SALT deduction. That would probably require a phase out as well.

None of this is easy. But the long term benefit to the country of getting rid of such government programs would pay benefits to our children and grandchildren down the road.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Many people will always tell you how WONDERFUL the 1940s through 1960s were. Remember the golden years of America when most everyone was a member of the MIDDLE CLASS and could afford to BUY a home and that was usually with only one person working? Notice the differences today. Yes, there have been some improvements over time. but some are SOMEWHAT superficial - like giant screen televisions and cars with greater horsepower. But, has the quality of life improved.......probably NOT. And that statement is quantifiable because there are world list of qualities for different countries - like in quality of life and other important factors the US was ranked in the top 10 in the 1950s and has dropped OUT and DOWN to being about 30th worldwide TODAY.

We all read that today's modern married couple has to have BOTH people with full-time jobs to even be considered in the US middle class. And recently the news media is talking about the house shortage and how rental units have their prices jacked up. A modern couple can NOT afford the DOWN PAYMENT on a home because the lack of NEW housing starts, which has driven the down payment to be in excess of what MOST middle-class citizens can POSSIBLY save up.

So we see the problem and we see the differences between today's era and the 1950s. So what is the answer ??? what is the WHY behind this social difference? The main answer is that simply the tax rates and brackets have changed and are LESS progressive .......thus favoring the WEALTHY even in states (NOT Florida) that have an income tax. Property taxes are also set low to favor the WEALTHY - that is why the US school system and students' test scores rank around 30th on a world list. And everyone wonders why technical workers in digital fields are hard to find in the US. So, we just roll them in from India and elsewhere.

So much wrong in that post...

I already touched on the "income tax fallacy"...

Let's talk about US school system... The neighborhoods where they spend THE MOST MONEY typically HAVE THE WORST SCORES...

In my home state of MD, my county spends a third of what Baltimore county spends per student, yet year after year has some of the best test scores in the nation... While those in B'more have the worst..

It's ain't about how much money they spend...

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Wait a sec...

Aren't you always claiming how Scandinavian countries (like Sweden) had a much better economic system than we do?

But now (with their VAT and high consumption taxes), all of a sudden they don't?

The Scandinavian countries MUST be doing something right because, as many US Doctors know, they are in the top 10 countries for both having the least INFANT MORTALITY and highest quality of life and other such factors. The US is a badly distant 30th in most factors (and I have been writing this for years here) The US is NOT in the TOP TEN for anything except things like gun violence and murders. (also, it was not that way after WW2)
.........The US was in the top 10 for factors like quality of life around 1950 and has been steadily slipping. Today Iceland is #1 for least infant mortality, Estonia is #3, and Finland is #4. The US is WAY down on THAT list. So, yes, I do stand by my statement about the economies of the Scandinavian countries.
.......I just looked up current statistics at worldpopulationreview.com for number of infant deaths per 1,000
........the US is in the middle of about 100 countries. US is 5.44 deaths per 1,000
........Russia is 4.36.....Cuba is 4.08........Poland is 3.74......UK is 3.62.......S. Korea......2.59......SWEDEN is 2.15
.........Japan is 1.82.......NORWAY is .......1.79 .......ICELAND is #1 at 1.54

I am NOT a US hater, I just like to be a US REALIST when comparing ALL the world's countries.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

So much wrong in that post...

I already touched on the "income tax fallacy"...

Let's talk about US school system... The neighborhoods where they spend THE MOST MONEY typically HAVE THE WORST SCORES...

In my home state of MD, my county spends a third of what Baltimore county spends per student, yet year after year has some of the best test scores in the nation... While those in B'more have the worst..

It's ain't about how much money they spend...

I noticed that there were no comments about my 2nd paragraph which puts EVERYTHING into the correct perspective and is completely NOT debatable.
.....And those statements about Baltimore just remind me to NEVER try and compare a WEALTHY SUBURBAN school system to a crime-ridden POOR school system............did I hear someone say "apples and oranges comparison. Or maybe it should be cumquats to burnt prunes ?
........In the past, the rich suburban schools did NOT have to pay for security guards and metal detectors like the school did in the INNER cities.
.....isn't Maryland the state where the college football team is named the TWERPS ??????

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Wait a sec...

Aren't you always claiming how Scandinavian countries (like Sweden) had a much better economic system than we do?

But now (with their VAT and high consumption taxes), all of a sudden they don't?

Also, NATO was pretty happy to allow / WELCOME Sweden and Finland into their organization. One reason is that their GNPs are high enough to be able to PAY for excellent military equipment, NOT that the US is lacking in any way in military capability. Just saying that ALL, ALL indications are that the Scandinavian countries have top economies. True that they have a VAT system as does most of Europe, but somehow they make it work for THEM. I am NOT sure HOW they do it, but I know for a fact that they have a strong middle class (and we do NOT today) and they DO find a way to make their WEALTHY class feed back WEALTH INTO their country. Many US millionaires and Corporations find ways to DODGE paying their fair share of taxes - they even push their wealth overseas to avoid taxation. And I assume there is a different mentality in the Scandinavian states about whether their government is "friend or foe". In the US the Federal government is considered to be the FOE and as such, US citizens may have less of a problem than a Scandinavian citizen may have about CHEATING their government OUT of taxes.
......It may be as simple as that. After all, in most things, ATTITUDE is everything. I also notice that Scandinavian citizens are NOT very interested in immigrating to the US.
........Ca. may be one of the few US states with a true PROGRESSIVE tax system as intended by the founding fathers, who ran away from Kings. The wealthy in Ca. are always complaining that they pay too much taxes. They want the tax burden shifted to the middle class as has been done in many US states. The middle class in Ca actually pays less of the tax burden than in most other states with flat tax / sales tax systems or states which have succumbed to the wealthy push to get the state to flatten out their PROGRESSIVE systems.