[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aces4

How about the non-earners who are producing nothing, sucking off the system and pay NO taxes? Where is the indignation with that ugly fact?

I can't help but wonder why those hating our system don't seek systems that have the style of financial control they seek. I could help with the packing...

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.”

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I DO think the top 5% paying 65% of taxes is unfair IF they receive 90% of the net income.

You never asked your neighbors for that information because you always trusted they were in the same boat that you were (or that you were doing better and didn’t want to bring the issue up). The suspicion is that those in the top 5% are in an entirely different boat than most of the rest of the country.

Prove me wrong. Show me the fact-based statistics on earned income next to the statistics on taxes paid. Show me the statistics on effective tax rate across the board. Explain to me why one is so easy to find but the other is not.

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

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Pballer

Is anybody concerned about the 500 billion dollar cuts to Medicare that may automatically be coming through the PAYGO Act (sequestration) due to the increase in deficits resulting from this bill?

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

You seem to be getting confused. As a whole they are paying 65% of all income tax collected. They are NOT paying 65% of their income as tax.

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.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Aces4

We went through life with modest income and children and no college education, (that may have been our saving grace..).

What they need to teach kids in high school along with the STEM programs, is how to operate a saw, drill, wrecking bar, evaluate homes which may have lead or asbestos isuues, operate and use a tape measure, level, how to use a paint brush, how to tear out a wall and whether that wall is a support wall, how to load a dumpster, shingle, paint.. the list is large. I should add how to operate a sewing machine, mend, hem, gardening, etc.

DUMP the sports programs and get them out of the schools. They should be separate entities and the bill not footed by the public. They are so far out of whack at this point with costs and demands that educations is on standby when it comes to funding.

Colleges are turning out degreed students that can't even manage a budget and no life skills.

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?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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.

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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"?????

[thekatman]

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

[Dilligas]

Originally Posted by Lottoguy

The debt is going to send us to the stone ages. The rich must pay more taxes. It’s the only way to make a dent.

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

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by thekatman

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

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

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Define rich.

And while you're at it, what would be their "fair share"?

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.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

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

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).

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by thekatman

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

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

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.”

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.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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).

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.