[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Actually it is...........by definition.

Some people are offended by the word, but it's accurate and correct.

Correct. We were forced to pay in with the promise of a payout. We are "entitled" to that money...

But many lump it together with "Welfare" and call them both "Entitlement Programs"... It's done to purposely obfuscate the programs... Welfare is a handout. No one is "entitled" to that money...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Proveone

Wrong! Fair tax refers to billionaires, who some pay little to no taxes, to some corporations who pay 8 %, when someone who earns $11,000 a year pays 10%. $44,000 to $95,000 pay 22%. Fair tax means billionaires and corporations should pay what the rest of us pay proportionately. The national debt should be paid buy the billionaires, who received tax breaks, and the people who passed the tax breaks. Stop parroting what you hear on unreliable sources.

No one who makes $11K actually pays 10% in Federal taxes...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by LonnyP

I think it has to do with the billionaires paying less taxes than a teacher making 60k a year, or perhaps those that only have to pay into SS up to earnings on 160k, even if they earn 450k.

Your first point is nonsense. Your 2nd point has some merit...

Except that SS payments are capped and if you pay more in you only receive more benefits up to a defined limit...

[JRcorvette]

They use the term all the time but will never say what a Fair Share is. Everyone should have to contribute something. I have heard that people get money back even if they did not pay anything in (not sure that is true). One thing that is True our government spends and wastes too much of our money. More fair share just means they will spend more than ever comes in! Here think about this for a minute or two…

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by GoRedSox!

Social Security has made it so that senior citizens went from being the demographic group most likely to live in poverty in 1935 to the demographic group least likely to live in poverty.

Some folks say they could have done better investing on their own then what they’ll get from Social Security. That’s true. But many would also have done worse, and many may not have invested at all.

And Social Security is not just about retirement. It provides income to families with kids who lose a parent. It provides income to the permanently disabled and Medicare provides health coverage to the permanently disabled and those with end stage renal disease. We might do better than Social Security for retirement, but it would be almost impossible to replicate the lifelong safety net for situations described in this paragraph.

As for your “fair share,” that is subjective for sure. But I think we can start with the wealthiest should at least pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else. Warren Buffett has said many times that his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. That being said, oppressive taxes on the rich will not solve our dilemma. There must be some combination of more revenue and less spending to balance the budget. It was done 4 straight years in the late 90’s and that’s it for many decades.

This lie has been debunked, many times...

He purposely muddle her Marginal tax rate vs his "Capital Gains" tax rate (since he receives minimal, if any, pay as salary...)

Her ACTUAL tax rate (after normal deductions) is about half of his Capital Gains tax rate...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yup - that begins with all of the people who mow your lawn, do your pesticides, the "handyman," the guy who resurfaces your driveway, the person who will come to your house to fix your golf cart, and everyone else who prefers that you pay them in cash. Cash payment = easier to not include in income when it's time to send your forms in to the IRS.

So Dean's pays no taxes?

Willie's Golf Cart Repair pays no taxes?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

rustyp is suggesting that people who get paid cash, should be the FIRST people to look at, when it comes to solving the "fair share" payments of taxes. Some who agree, might even be trying to say "them thar illeguls" without actually saying "them thar illeguls," which is nasty (especially since it's their bosses who are doing the illegal thing by hiring them in the first place).

I pointed out why he's shooting himself in the foot when he suggests such a thing.

There are wealthy people who have so many write-offs and deductions and back doors to tax avoidance measures, that they pay no income tax at all. One wealthy person's income tax will be enough to cover all "them thar illeguls" income tax in a year. Two wealthy person's income tax will cover them, AND the retirees who don't want Social Security to know they're still working (and thus reduce their monthly check), AND the single women who can't make ends meet without a side gig like making soap or other crafts.

Three wealthy people? Fuggedaboudit. Now we're getting into "paying an entire small town's expenses for 6 months."

I agree that if you work and genuinely earn a certain minimum income, you should be accountable to pay income tax on it. But the little guy who gets $500/week mowing lawns in The Villages is not the first guy I'd go to, to set the example.

Um... YOU'RE the one who brought up "them thar illeguls", not RustyP...

Don't try to transfer YOUR preconceived biases onto others...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

If he/she works 50 weeks a year he/she makes $25,000. US income tax starts at 10% at $11,000 for a single filer who gets at least the standard deduction of $13,850 so if the mower is a single person he/she may owe enough income tax to buy a few Big Macs.

Exactly... Thats the difference between Marginal and Actual tax rates that people love to ignore...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Agree. This is not a political statement....just an example. Mitt Romney, former Governor of MA and a candidate for POTUS at that time, got pinched for hiring a landscaper who employed undocumented workers. I’m sure there are dozens of other examples as well. It just shows there is no socioeconomic barrier when it comes to saving money....or taxes

Are you suggesting he hired that company because he knew they hired undocumented workers, just to save money?

That said, are we to examine the Green Cards of every employee of every company with whom we do business?

Some say that would be racist...

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Are you suggesting he hired that company because he knew they hired undocumented workers, just to save money?

That said, are we to examine the Green Cards of every employee of every company with whom we do business?

Some say that would be racist...

I’m not suggesting that. Even in that timeframe it was a hot button issue. As a candidate for POTUS you would think your team would’ve vetted such possibilities. And no, obviously we can’t check green cards but there is a population out there that seeks out these kind of contractors.