If a guy making 50,000 dollars

[kjoe]

pays 7650 dollars to social security, why should a guy who makes 500,000 pay just 23,000? If he payed the same percentage as the 50 g man, he would contribute 76, 500. He does pay a higher percentage in income tax. According to an article in Newsweek, the 50,000 dollar guy pays about 22 percent overall. 150,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000 come in about 29 percent. One thing a lot of people do not know, is that Missouri's school teachers do not contribute to social security. About 21 percent of the money you pay for public school teacher salaries goes into their retirement fund. It is unbelievably lucrative for a 100,000 dollar a year administrator. He can work about three years in administration, retire and collect 80,000 a year for a couple of decades while holding another job, or simply doing nothing. It is a lousy deal for someone who gives ten or fifteen of their best years, realize they don't have the dedication to continue and move on. They forfeit a lot.

[Iowa_Card]

Fuck Social Security.

[big d note]

4 years ago, lots of people were talking about the Flat Tax issue. Now you never hear a peep about it. Why not?

I'm no economist, but a flat tax makes sense to me. Plus, it would cut down on paperwork and maybe we could reduce the IRS to cut government spending.

Is there a reason why the flat tax is a bad idea?

[kjoe]

Originally posted by Iowa_Card@Apr 13 2004, 02:30 PM
Fuck Social Security.

condoms?

[kjoe]

Originally posted by big d note@Apr 13 2004, 02:40 PM


I'm no economist, but a flat tax makes sense to me.

Is there a reason why the flat tax is a bad idea?

It's a great idea for wealthy people as applied in social security. It affects most of the population but not them.

[phantom]

Originally posted by kjoe@Apr 13 2004, 02:28 PM
pays 7650 dollars to social security, why should a guy who makes 500,000 pay just 23,000? If he payed the same percentage as the 50 g man, he would contribute 76, 500. He does pay a higher percentage in income tax. According to an article in Newsweek, the 50,000 dollar guy pays about 22 percent overall. 150,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000 come in about 29 percent. One thing a lot of people do not know, is that Missouri's school teachers do not contribute to social security. About 21 percent of the money you pay for public school teacher salaries goes into their retirement fund. It is unbelievably lucrative for a 100,000 dollar a year administrator. He can work about three years in administration, retire and collect 80,000 a year for a couple of decades while holding another job, or simply doing nothing. It is a lousy deal for someone who gives ten or fifteen of their best years, realize they don't have the dedication to continue and move on. They forfeit a lot.

But does the $500K guy doesn't get the same rate of benefit as the $50K guy does he? Isn't his contribution lower because his benefit will be lower?

[BurnKU]

Originally posted by big d note@Apr 13 2004, 02:40 PM
4 years ago, lots of people were talking about the Flat Tax issue. Now you never hear a peep about it. Why not?

I'm no economist, but a flat tax makes sense to me. Plus, it would cut down on paperwork and maybe we could reduce the IRS to cut government spending.

Is there a reason why the flat tax is a bad idea?

Yes, if everone pays the same percentage, a certain group of politicians won't be able to play their class warfare game anymore, plus, rejecting it is a great way to play that game.

[BurnKU]

Originally posted by phantom+Apr 13 2004, 02:45 PM-->

QUOTE (phantom @ Apr 13 2004, 02:45 PM)

dredbyrd Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 11283 Share Tweet #9 04-13-2004, 02:58 PM Originally posted by BurnKU@Apr 13 2004, 02:45 PM won't be able to play their class warfare game anymore, You're saying a flat tax would prevent the trend of social redistribution away from the middle class to the richest of the rich (AKA class warfare)? Hardly. It would worsen it. And bad. Every so called "flat" tax proposal that has had serious consideration in the last decade would have had the richest of the rich paying nothing in taxes. Damn these electric sex pants! 26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10 Bring back the death penalty for corporations! Comment Post Cancel BurnKU Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4787 Share Tweet #10 04-13-2004, 03:00 PM Originally posted by dredbyrd+Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM--> QUOTE (dredbyrd @ Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM) big d note Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10377 Share Tweet #11 04-13-2004, 03:01 PM Originally posted by dredbyrd@Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM Every so called "flat" tax proposal that has had serious consideration in the last decade would have had the richest of the rich paying nothing in taxes. Is it really a flat tax then? I'd like to see a REAL flat tax. Like everybody pays 20% of their income, for instance. You have 8 kids? Pay 20%. You're married? Pay 20%. You make $5 a year? Pay $1. You make $5 million a year? Pay $1 million a year. But that's too simple. The government thrives on making things complicated. You can't kill terror So let's declare war There's so many dead that we can't keep score Comment Post Cancel Hedley Lamarr Share Tweet #12 04-13-2004, 03:01 PM Originally posted by kjoe@Apr 13 2004, 02:28 PM pays 7650 dollars to social security, why should a guy who makes 500,000 pay just 23,000? If he payed the same percentage as the 50 g man, he would contribute 76, 500. He does pay a higher percentage in income tax. According to an article in Newsweek, the 50,000 dollar guy pays about 22 percent overall. 150,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000 come in about 29 percent. One thing a lot of people do not know, is that Missouri's school teachers do not contribute to social security. About 21 percent of the money you pay for public school teacher salaries goes into their retirement fund. It is unbelievably lucrative for a 100,000 dollar a year administrator. He can work about three years in administration, retire and collect 80,000 a year for a couple of decades while holding another job, or simply doing nothing. It is a lousy deal for someone who gives ten or fifteen of their best years, realize they don't have the dedication to continue and move on. They forfeit a lot. First, social security is taxed at 6.20% of your first $87,000 in income, which equals a maximum of $5,394 in liability per year. Your facts don't make any sense because they have no real world applicability. Second, those in the lower to lower-middle class who pay modest amounts of social security are being significantly subsidized by those who pay the full amount because the benefits are not proportionate to the amount paid in. In other words, I can pay less than $1,000/year or over $5,000/year in social security over the course of my employment and receive roughly the same amount of benefit when I retire. Your facts are wrong, and your liberal argument fails. Comment Post Cancel BurnKU Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4787 Share Tweet #13 04-13-2004, 03:09 PM Originally posted by Hedley Lamarr+Apr 13 2004, 03:01 PM--> QUOTE (Hedley Lamarr @ Apr 13 2004, 03:01 PM) Hedley Lamarr Share Tweet #14 04-13-2004, 04:25 PM Originally posted by dredbyrd@Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM Every so called "flat" tax proposal that has had serious consideration in the last decade would have had the richest of the rich paying nothing in taxes. Why? Because investment income would not be subject to the flat tax? Under most of the flat tax proposals, investment income would be subject to a separate tax schedule unrelated to taxable wages. This would be similar to current treatment of capital gains and taxable dividends. Comment Post Cancel dredbyrd Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 11283 Share Tweet #15 04-13-2004, 04:26 PM Because Bill Gates would be able to deduct the value of his company which would far exceed whatever comparitively nominal salary he gives himself. Damn these electric sex pants! 26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10 Bring back the death penalty for corporations! Comment Post Cancel Previous 1 2 3 4 7 template Next English (US) Deutsch (Du) English (US) French Spanish Help Contact Us Go to top Copyright © 2003-13, TippingPitchers.com Powered by vBulletin® Version 5.7.4 Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. All times are GMT-6. This page was generated at 07:32 AM. Working... Yes No OK OK Cancel X

[dredbyrd]

Originally posted by BurnKU@Apr 13 2004, 02:45 PM
won't be able to play their class warfare game anymore,

You're saying a flat tax would prevent the trend of social redistribution away from the middle class to the richest of the rich (AKA class warfare)?

Hardly. It would worsen it. And bad.

Every so called "flat" tax proposal that has had serious consideration in the last decade would have had the richest of the rich paying nothing in taxes.

[BurnKU]

Originally posted by dredbyrd+Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM-->

QUOTE (dredbyrd @ Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM)

big d note Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10377 Share Tweet #11 04-13-2004, 03:01 PM Originally posted by dredbyrd@Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM Every so called "flat" tax proposal that has had serious consideration in the last decade would have had the richest of the rich paying nothing in taxes. Is it really a flat tax then? I'd like to see a REAL flat tax. Like everybody pays 20% of their income, for instance. You have 8 kids? Pay 20%. You're married? Pay 20%. You make $5 a year? Pay $1. You make $5 million a year? Pay $1 million a year. But that's too simple. The government thrives on making things complicated. You can't kill terror So let's declare war There's so many dead that we can't keep score Comment Post Cancel Hedley Lamarr Share Tweet #12 04-13-2004, 03:01 PM Originally posted by kjoe@Apr 13 2004, 02:28 PM pays 7650 dollars to social security, why should a guy who makes 500,000 pay just 23,000? If he payed the same percentage as the 50 g man, he would contribute 76, 500. He does pay a higher percentage in income tax. According to an article in Newsweek, the 50,000 dollar guy pays about 22 percent overall. 150,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000 come in about 29 percent. One thing a lot of people do not know, is that Missouri's school teachers do not contribute to social security. About 21 percent of the money you pay for public school teacher salaries goes into their retirement fund. It is unbelievably lucrative for a 100,000 dollar a year administrator. He can work about three years in administration, retire and collect 80,000 a year for a couple of decades while holding another job, or simply doing nothing. It is a lousy deal for someone who gives ten or fifteen of their best years, realize they don't have the dedication to continue and move on. They forfeit a lot. First, social security is taxed at 6.20% of your first $87,000 in income, which equals a maximum of $5,394 in liability per year. Your facts don't make any sense because they have no real world applicability. Second, those in the lower to lower-middle class who pay modest amounts of social security are being significantly subsidized by those who pay the full amount because the benefits are not proportionate to the amount paid in. In other words, I can pay less than $1,000/year or over $5,000/year in social security over the course of my employment and receive roughly the same amount of benefit when I retire. Your facts are wrong, and your liberal argument fails. Comment Post Cancel BurnKU Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4787 Share Tweet #13 04-13-2004, 03:09 PM Originally posted by Hedley Lamarr+Apr 13 2004, 03:01 PM--> QUOTE (Hedley Lamarr @ Apr 13 2004, 03:01 PM) Hedley Lamarr Share Tweet #14 04-13-2004, 04:25 PM Originally posted by dredbyrd@Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM Every so called "flat" tax proposal that has had serious consideration in the last decade would have had the richest of the rich paying nothing in taxes. Why? Because investment income would not be subject to the flat tax? Under most of the flat tax proposals, investment income would be subject to a separate tax schedule unrelated to taxable wages. This would be similar to current treatment of capital gains and taxable dividends. Comment Post Cancel dredbyrd Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 11283 Share Tweet #15 04-13-2004, 04:26 PM Because Bill Gates would be able to deduct the value of his company which would far exceed whatever comparitively nominal salary he gives himself. Damn these electric sex pants! 26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10 Bring back the death penalty for corporations! Comment Post Cancel Previous 1 2 3 4 7 template Next English (US) Deutsch (Du) English (US) French Spanish Help Contact Us Go to top Copyright © 2003-13, TippingPitchers.com Powered by vBulletin® Version 5.7.4 Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. All times are GMT-6. This page was generated at 07:32 AM. Working... Yes No OK OK Cancel X

[big d note]

Originally posted by dredbyrd@Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM
Every so called "flat" tax proposal that has had serious consideration in the last decade would have had the richest of the rich paying nothing in taxes.

Is it really a flat tax then?

I'd like to see a REAL flat tax. Like everybody pays 20% of their income, for instance. You have 8 kids? Pay 20%. You're married? Pay 20%. You make $5 a year? Pay $1. You make $5 million a year? Pay $1 million a year.

But that's too simple. The government thrives on making things complicated.

[Hedley Lamarr]

Originally posted by kjoe@Apr 13 2004, 02:28 PM
pays 7650 dollars to social security, why should a guy who makes 500,000 pay just 23,000? If he payed the same percentage as the 50 g man, he would contribute 76, 500. He does pay a higher percentage in income tax. According to an article in Newsweek, the 50,000 dollar guy pays about 22 percent overall. 150,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000 come in about 29 percent. One thing a lot of people do not know, is that Missouri's school teachers do not contribute to social security. About 21 percent of the money you pay for public school teacher salaries goes into their retirement fund. It is unbelievably lucrative for a 100,000 dollar a year administrator. He can work about three years in administration, retire and collect 80,000 a year for a couple of decades while holding another job, or simply doing nothing. It is a lousy deal for someone who gives ten or fifteen of their best years, realize they don't have the dedication to continue and move on. They forfeit a lot.

First, social security is taxed at 6.20% of your first $87,000 in income, which equals a maximum of $5,394 in liability per year. Your facts don't make any sense because they have no real world applicability.

Second, those in the lower to lower-middle class who pay modest amounts of social security are being significantly subsidized by those who pay the full amount because the benefits are not proportionate to the amount paid in. In other words, I can pay less than $1,000/year or over $5,000/year in social security over the course of my employment and receive roughly the same amount of benefit when I retire.

Your facts are wrong, and your liberal argument fails.

[BurnKU]

Originally posted by Hedley Lamarr+Apr 13 2004, 03:01 PM-->

QUOTE (Hedley Lamarr @ Apr 13 2004, 03:01 PM)

Hedley Lamarr Share Tweet #14 04-13-2004, 04:25 PM Originally posted by dredbyrd@Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM Every so called "flat" tax proposal that has had serious consideration in the last decade would have had the richest of the rich paying nothing in taxes. Why? Because investment income would not be subject to the flat tax? Under most of the flat tax proposals, investment income would be subject to a separate tax schedule unrelated to taxable wages. This would be similar to current treatment of capital gains and taxable dividends. Comment Post Cancel dredbyrd Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 11283 Share Tweet #15 04-13-2004, 04:26 PM Because Bill Gates would be able to deduct the value of his company which would far exceed whatever comparitively nominal salary he gives himself. Damn these electric sex pants! 26+31+34+42+44+46+64+67+82+06 = 10 Bring back the death penalty for corporations! Comment Post Cancel Previous 1 2 3 4 7 template Next English (US) Deutsch (Du) English (US) French Spanish Help Contact Us Go to top Copyright © 2003-13, TippingPitchers.com Powered by vBulletin® Version 5.7.4 Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. All times are GMT-6. This page was generated at 07:32 AM. Working... Yes No OK OK Cancel X

[Hedley Lamarr]

Originally posted by dredbyrd@Apr 13 2004, 02:58 PM
Every so called "flat" tax proposal that has had serious consideration in the last decade would have had the richest of the rich paying nothing in taxes.

Why? Because investment income would not be subject to the flat tax? Under most of the flat tax proposals, investment income would be subject to a separate tax schedule unrelated to taxable wages. This would be similar to current treatment of capital gains and taxable dividends.

[dredbyrd]

Because Bill Gates would be able to deduct the value of his company which would far exceed whatever comparitively nominal salary he gives himself.