[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.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Let's start with all the people who didn't pay their fair share by being paid (or paying themselves) "under the table".

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.

[Shipping up to Boston]

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.

Right but you called them to do that work to save some cash (not a bad thing). Mostly to avoid paying for a company that has to pay a worker a fair wage, health insurance, 401K etc. And the taxes. We’ve now come full circle

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Right but you called them to do that work to save some cash (not a bad thing). Mostly to avoid paying for a company that has to pay a worker a fair wage, health insurance, 401K etc. And the taxes. We’ve now come full circle

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.

[Curt Steele]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

With regard to taxes, I keep hearing the term 'fair share', but I don't know what that means. How much is a 'fair share' in dollars?

There's one for you, nineteen for me. TAXMAN

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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.

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.

[golfing eagles]

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.

SS is a different issue, not affiliated with the general treasury. And anyone who thinks billionaires pay less tax than a teacher making 60K has some serious research to do. But I do believe they repeat that crap on MSNBC every 7 minutes after the hour.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Cliff Fr

Your comparing percentage to dollars. Apples to oranges. Someone earning $200,000 a year has a heck of a lot more money left over after paying for necessities than someone making $30,000 a year.

So what? They probably have more education and more responsibility in their jobs and worked a lot harder to get there. And while on the subject---"earned income credit", "child care credits", etc----why am I subsidizing other people's children? It's just more socialistic robin hood programs.

[Bill14564]

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.

$1,118 should buy more than a few Big Macs. But of course, the tax forms are just a bit more complicated than that.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

$1,118 should buy more than a few Big Macs. But of course, the tax forms are just a bit more complicated than that.

$25,000 - $13,850 - $11,000 = $150. The 10% tax on $150 is $15.00 which might buy a Bog Mac meal in today's world. I was wrong. It will not buy a few Big Macs.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

$25,000 - $13,850 - $11,000 = $150. The 10% tax on $150 is $15.00 which might buy a Bog Mac meal in today's world. I was wrong. It will not buy a few Big Macs.

Good math but bad understanding of tax tables. Tax is 10% on first $11,000 then 12% on the remaining $150.

[rustyp]

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.

Wow - out of bounds! I am suggesting illegal as in Illegal per the existing tax codes. How about all those business owners claiming false deductions ? These people are stealing from us law abiding citizens.

Stop stealing from me by cheating on your income tax. You are breaking the law. Once we can all play by the existing rules then it would be more appropriate to discuss changing the rules.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So what? They probably have more education and more responsibility in their jobs and worked a lot harder to get there. And while on the subject---"earned income credit", "child care credits", etc----why am I subsidizing other people's children? It's just more socialistic robin hood programs.

So, Robin Of Loxley was a bad guy? I thought he was a supporter of good King Richard, and a foe to evil would be tyrant scumbag Prince John and his henchman, the sheriff of Nottingham. Well open my eyes and call me "woke"! The things you can learn on TOTV!
😳

[Shipping up to Boston]

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.

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

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by GoRedSox!

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.

The main value of SS is to force people to save for retirement. Most people would just spend now / worry later.