The whole, “if you don’t like it then move” thing is getting really old.

I don’t hate the system, I dislike the part of the system that accepts donations in return for favorable modifications, and I really dislike the corruption.

I suspect that if it was ever attempted it to put names or actual numbers against those claims, it would be very difficult to show a large number of those who are sucking off the system. Are there cheaters and crooks! Of course there are but most likely not in the large numbers that are being implied.

Where did you get the idea that there were non-earners sucking off the system, was it from personal experience or did you hear it from someone who would rather you look at them rather than look at him? “Hey, look over there! Isn’t that terrible? *That* is what needs to be fixed, not this.”

Because it is irrelevant except to satisfy the curiosity of some.

From the TaxPolicyCenter:

"ENFORCEMENT
The PAYGO rule has not been enforced consistently. For example, the 1997 budget act put in place a method, known as the SGR (the sustainable growth rate), for determining Medicare payments to physicians. Application of that formula threatened huge cuts in Medicare physician reimbursements. Congress prevented the payment rates determined by SGR from taking effect, but only for one year at a time. While Congress did pay for these one-year fixes, by limiting the fix to one year it did not need to pay the cost of the fix over the full budget window. When the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 replaced the SGR formula with a new system in 2015, Congress waived the PAYGO rules, exempting itself from paying for the entire cost of the new legislation. They again waived the PAYGO rules at the end of 2017 so that they did not have to pay for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.

It appears that PAYGO can no longer be considered an effective tool for imposing budget discipline."


I'm not losing any sleep.

No kidding, but they are paying millions while others pay nothing.

My 2 suggestions are either

a) flat rate tax so even those with low incomes have some skin in the game, rather than just supporting those that promise the most freebies, or

b) Unless you are a net taxpayer, you forfeit the right to vote.

I actually agree that sports should be optional and not part of any state budget. I ALSO think that there should be no such thing as "professional sports" at all. All these pro football players are recruited from schools. Schools get kickbacks. A school that doesn't produce recruits, doesn't get kickbacks. All that entire system has got to go. Right out the door. No pro sports = no high school recruits needed = no funding needed to support high school sports.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation of this country, and has nothing to do with my post. I didn't play sports in college. I WORKED in college. Two part-time jobs, plus playing music in the subways for tips.

And if you have everyone learning all those things in college, who will be learning how to be doctors, dentists, nurses, and lawyers, scientists, researchers, and teachers? Who will be learning how to make clothing, and decorate homes, and create artwork and poetry? Who will learn the languages necessary to communicate with people in other countries when they go to do business deals on behalf of their corporation?

Do you want everyone to be a worker bee, with no one providing the sciences and "humanities" that make us human, and not just drones?

Here's a thought - stop earning millions every year, and you won't have to pay so much in taxes. You've chosen to be wealthy. Enjoy your wealth.

I pay property tax, sales tax, and yes - I do PAY federal income tax on a few minor investments (I have 20 shares of Intel stock, it's like $1.60/year in income tax on the dividends). But because we earn less than $60k/year household, there's really nothing to tax after our standard deduction.

And therefore I should subsidize SOMEONE ELSE'S "fair share"?????

Beware of the gotchas
 

The $6000 is adjusted downward after $175,000 when filing married jointly. And zeroes out at $250k.

The rich pay 49% of all tax revenue currently...... so what is their 'fair share'.....?

So, in other words, "the rich" are not getting this "tax cut" that the media is blabbing all over the airwaves (as usual).

The US government could/should go back to the tax brackets of 1960, when there was a TRUE middle class. Today there is no middle class and that causes all our individual problems and makes the US weaker.

This SPECIFIC tax cut being discussed in THIS thread, is in regards to a break for seniors 65 or older.

It isn't the only tax cut for the wealthy. It is ONE tax cut for seniors, which may or may not apply to them at all, depending on their income (or lack thereof).

The $6,000 is per taxpayer. A single filer would get it at an AGI of $75,000

One needs to take the blinders off and get into the real world. There are large numbers of people living off the system, work in the ER near or in a large city. Then examine disability claims and follow up on the people "who can't work another day" in their life. Is disability a reality, oh yeah, but not close to the people who are sponging off that system.

For example, we watch constantly on clothing drives, turkey handouts at Thanksgiving, Christmas fundraisers, food banks, school supplies, (all which are important to the community), but the number of people in fine cars, great clothes, beautiful fingernails, tatoos, exceptional hairdos who have learned to suck off the public and spend their money frivolously is ridiculous. Those are just the tip of the iceberg. People don't want to work anymore. Thankfully, we still have a military and tradespeople to prop up our society.

If one doesn't pay taxes, one doesn't need a cut. The tax cut will aid those seniors who are paying their fair share to start with.