Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 8, 2015 21:48:10 GMT -5
So you want to remove the cap and have the top marginal rate be 39% federal, another 6+% for SS, and then add in state tax for most people to where the government can take half their check...then you want to cap the benefits? You think giving the government more money is a "fix?" i don't think he mentioned state taxes, nor did he mention the 39% federal tax. removing the cap and treating all compensation as "income" would indeed fix the problem with social security, and would probably go a long way to closing the deficit, as well. what is YOUR fix? Removing the cap adds another tax to the other tax brackets above the current cap. I already made a suggestion that I thought was a decent compromise between those wanting higher taxes and those wanting to increase the age. Increase SS tax by 5% (2.5 employee and 2.5 employer), but put all of that into a privatized account linked to a target date fund (more funds can be added eventually). Let people take the privatized portion out at 62 years old and let the government portion kick in at the increased age of 70 for full benefits and 67-68 for partial benefits. So the privatized portion only needs to last 8 years until the government portion kicks in (assuming people don't have any other savings). In this way, those people who have jobs where it isn't really realistic to try and make them work until they are 70 (assuming the government won't try to increase it again) can still have some semblance of a retirement at age 62 if they so desire. I'd make any withdraws from that account tax-free as well to make it stretch farther.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 8, 2015 21:49:04 GMT -5
So you want to remove the cap and have the top marginal rate be 39% federal, another 6+% for SS, and then add in state tax for most people to where the government can take half their check...then you want to cap the benefits? You think giving the government more money is a "fix?" That was JUST my fix for Social Security... If you'd like my fix for all taxes, of all kinds... I'll happily expand my answer. My fix for Income Tax would be:Every living human gets a $10,000 deduction, and then the wage earners pay a "flat tax" (maybe 15%-20%... have to crunch the numbers... see what's fair/reasonable) of all income above that. And by "all income" I mean ALL income. If it's a "stock option" it's income. if it's interest from the bank, it's income. If it's a prize won on a game show, it's income. If it's ANY money that you didn't have before, from ANY "business relation"... it's income. And the part poor people (myself included) would hate... discontinue the "EITC". My fix for paying for healthcare would be:A federal sales tax on all sales. 3%. Collected for 5 years BEFORE using it to pay ANY medical cost. While at the same time, tracking medical costs over those 5 years, based on "real costs" not "expanded costs to make up for people that can't pay" (example: counting aspirins as 5 cents each... not $20 each). Then adjusting that tax rate as necessary/reasonable... While, at the same time, putting in price controls on medical care. So you want a single-payer healthcare system where the government sets price controls and charges taxes to pay for it?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,115
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 8, 2015 21:55:00 GMT -5
So you want to remove the cap and have the top marginal rate be 39% federal, another 6+% for SS, and then add in state tax for most people to where the government can take half their check...then you want to cap the benefits? You think giving the government more money is a "fix?" That was JUST my fix for Social Security... If you'd like my fix for all taxes, of all kinds... I'll happily expand my answer. My fix for Income Tax would be:Every living human gets a $10,000 deduction, and then the wage earners pay a "flat tax" (maybe 15%-20%... have to crunch the numbers... see what's fair/reasonable) of all income above that. And by "all income" I mean ALL income. If it's a "stock option" it's income. if it's interest from the bank, it's income. If it's a prize won on a game show, it's income. If it's ANY money that you didn't have before, from ANY "business relation"... it's income. And the part poor people (myself included) would hate... discontinue the "EITC". My fix for paying for healthcare would be:A federal sales tax on all sales. 3%. Collected for 5 years BEFORE using it to pay ANY medical cost. While at the same time, tracking medical costs over those 5 years, based on "real costs" not "expanded costs to make up for people that can't pay" (example: counting aspirins as 5 cents each... not $20 each). Then adjusting that tax rate as necessary/reasonable... While, at the same time, putting in price controls on medical care. the total revenue to the treasury is $4.9T. the total US personal income is $13T (2012). therefore, a flat tax would have to be 38%. if you want to break it down by federal, state, and local, the breakdown is approximately 50/30/20. so, the federal tax would have to be 19%, state would end up being 12%, and local would be 7%. www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_2012USrt_16rs1nkeep in mind, of course that we had a $1T deficit in 2012. that means that we would have to run an additional 20% deficit tax to cover that in 2012, and it was basically 100% federal. that is another 7% federal, for a total of 26%. if we want to pay down the debt on, say, a 30 year interest free schedule, then you can add another 12%, or about 4.4% "debt reduction tax" = 30% i think the flat taxers are significantly underestimating the rate required to set things right. of course, 30% is far less than 41.65%, so any really wealthy person SHOULD be rightly pleased. but of course, they wouldn't be, since most of their income is "unearned". a 30% tax would be over 2x what Romney pays, and about half of what Buffett pays.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,115
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 8, 2015 21:57:27 GMT -5
i don't think he mentioned state taxes, nor did he mention the 39% federal tax. removing the cap and treating all compensation as "income" would indeed fix the problem with social security, and would probably go a long way to closing the deficit, as well. what is YOUR fix? Removing the cap adds another tax to the other tax brackets above the current cap. but removing the cap also means that everyone pays at the same rate, in terms of SS. why doesn't that sound "fair"?I already made a suggestion that I thought was a decent compromise between those wanting higher taxes and those wanting to increase the age. Increase SS tax by 5% (2.5 employee and 2.5 employer), but put all of that into a privatized account linked to a target date fund (more funds can be added eventually). Let people take the privatized portion out at 62 years old and let the government portion kick in at the increased age of 70. So the privatized portion only needs to last 8 years until the government portion kicks in (assuming people don't have any other savings). In this way, those people who have jobs where it isn't really realistic to try and make them work until they are 70 (assuming the government won't try to increase it again) can still have some semblance of a retirement at age 62 if they so desire. I'd make any withdraws from that account tax-free as well to make it stretch farther. i am not sure that will fix the problem. social security will be running deficits very soon, if not already. taking that money off the table will not help that problem. so, unless you like deficits, that doesn't seem like a solution, at all, and will invariably lead to cutting benefits- which is fine by me. i am projecting that SS will account for less than 10% of my retirement, and it is a 10% i can do without. but what about the rest of y'allz? edit: so again, i see Richard's idea as "fixing the problem", and yours as "not fixing the problem".
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 8, 2015 22:02:25 GMT -5
Removing the cap adds another tax to the other tax brackets above the current cap. but removing the cap also means that everyone pays at the same rate, in terms of SS. why doesn't that sound "fair"?I already made a suggestion that I thought was a decent compromise between those wanting higher taxes and those wanting to increase the age. Increase SS tax by 5% (2.5 employee and 2.5 employer), but put all of that into a privatized account linked to a target date fund (more funds can be added eventually). Let people take the privatized portion out at 62 years old and let the government portion kick in at the increased age of 70. So the privatized portion only needs to last 8 years until the government portion kicks in (assuming people don't have any other savings). In this way, those people who have jobs where it isn't really realistic to try and make them work until they are 70 (assuming the government won't try to increase it again) can still have some semblance of a retirement at age 62 if they so desire. I'd make any withdraws from that account tax-free as well to make it stretch farther. i am not sure that will fix the problem. social security will be running deficits very soon, if not already. taking that money off the table will not help that problem. so, unless you like deficits, that doesn't seem like a solution, at all, and will invariably lead to cutting benefits- which is fine by me. i am projecting that SS will account for less than 10% of my retirement, and it is a 10% i can do without. but what about the rest of y'allz? Taking money off he table short term will help long term because a line needs to be drawn on how much more the government should be able to tax and increase the age of eligibility. I think in the long run that type of hybrid system would work much better.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 8, 2015 22:06:38 GMT -5
If you want to increase taxes to fund SS shortfalls, then call a deficit tax because when that deficit is no longer and issue, then people will expect the government to stop charging it. Letting the government charge more and make people wait longer may fix it in the short-term, but do you really expect the government to reverse things when that isn't the issue? History says they'll spend any surplus and then if it happens again, try to do the same thing all over again.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 8, 2015 22:12:23 GMT -5
Politically_Incorrect12, personally I have no fear of privatization as I am not counting on collecting SSA. But most don't save & i don't want a bunch of marginally housed 80 year olds & my x will be amoung them if not drawing off mine So you think raising the tax another 5% and privatizing would cause more people to be marginally housed? I'm simply offering a compromise to those that seem to want to raise the age and those that seem to want to raise the taxes paid. Raise the taxes, but put it in a privatized account, let people draw off that account earlier and have the government controlled portion for a later age. Huh? If you've read my posts on the other board you'll know that I have always advocated a 3 prong approach: ♤ cut SSDI to minimum early retirement age, tied to SSA + Medicare if disabled between 62-65, eliminate over 65 ♡ raise FRA from 67 to 70 ◇ remove cap on FICA but limit it to 2x FPL ♧ if anyone wants more, there's always IRAs / 457s / 401s / Roth / investingAnd while we're at it, SSI should be FPL or less. No work, no play
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,115
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 8, 2015 22:13:21 GMT -5
So you think raising the tax another 5% and privatizing would cause more people to be marginally housed? I'm simply offering a compromise to those that seem to want to raise the age and those that seem to want to raise the taxes paid. Raise the taxes, but put it in a privatized account, let people draw off that account earlier and have the government controlled portion for a later age. Huh? If you've read my posts on the other board you'll know that I have always advocated a 3 prong approach: ♤ cut SSDI to minimum early retirement age, tied to SSA + Medicare if disabled between 62-65, eliminate over 65 ♡ raise FRA from 67 to 70 ◇ remove cap on FICA but limit it to 2x FPL ♧ if anyone wants more, there's always IRAs / 457s / 401s / Roth / investingAnd while we're at it, SSI should be FPL or less. No work, no play sorry, Ombud, Mr. No Coffee here- what is FPL?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,115
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 8, 2015 22:14:31 GMT -5
If you want to increase taxes to fund SS shortfalls, then call a deficit tax because when that deficit is no longer and issue, then people will expect the government to stop charging it. Letting the government charge more and make people wait longer may fix it in the short-term, but do you really expect the government to reverse things when that isn't the issue? History says they'll spend any surplus and then if it happens again, try to do the same thing all over again. i like the idea of a deficit tax, actually. i like it very very much. but i think we should also have a "paydown of principle tax".
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 8, 2015 22:21:57 GMT -5
FPL = Federal poverty level FRA = full retirement age WFP = windfall provision, ya pay in but cannot collect any more ... or effectively collect. Amount of pension is subtracted from SSA making it a net neutral event
The idea of maxing it out at 2x FPL is that those who contribute more should get more
Personally I have no fear of privatization as I am not counting on collecting SSA. Fine if I do, fine if I done [WFP]
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 0:12:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2015 22:44:38 GMT -5
That was JUST my fix for Social Security... If you'd like my fix for all taxes, of all kinds... I'll happily expand my answer. My fix for Income Tax would be:Every living human gets a $10,000 deduction, and then the wage earners pay a "flat tax" (maybe 15%-20%... have to crunch the numbers... see what's fair/reasonable) of all income above that. And by "all income" I mean ALL income. If it's a "stock option" it's income. if it's interest from the bank, it's income. If it's a prize won on a game show, it's income. If it's ANY money that you didn't have before, from ANY "business relation"... it's income. And the part poor people (myself included) would hate... discontinue the "EITC". My fix for paying for healthcare would be:A federal sales tax on all sales. 3%. Collected for 5 years BEFORE using it to pay ANY medical cost. While at the same time, tracking medical costs over those 5 years, based on "real costs" not "expanded costs to make up for people that can't pay" (example: counting aspirins as 5 cents each... not $20 each). Then adjusting that tax rate as necessary/reasonable... While, at the same time, putting in price controls on medical care. the total revenue to the treasury is $4.9T. the total US personal income is $13T (2012). therefore, a flat tax would have to be 38%. if you want to break it down by federal, state, and local, the breakdown is approximately 50/30/20. so, the federal tax would have to be 19%, state would end up being 12%, and local would be 7%. www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_2012USrt_16rs1nkeep in mind, of course that we had a $1T deficit in 2012. that means that we would have to run an additional 20% deficit tax to cover that in 2012, and it was basically 100% federal. that is another 7% federal, for a total of 26%. if we want to pay down the debt on, say, a 30 year interest free schedule, then you can add another 12%, or about 4.4% "debt reduction tax" = 30% i think the flat taxers are significantly underestimating the rate required to set things right. of course, 30% is far less than 41.65%, so any really wealthy person SHOULD be rightly pleased. but of course, they wouldn't be, since most of their income is "unearned". a 30% tax would be over 2x what Romney pays, and about half of what Buffett pays. If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. I admit, freely, that I was guessing on the percentages. (what do you think about my idea of eliminating EITC? I'd hate it, but it needs to be done.)
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 8, 2015 23:10:54 GMT -5
My fix for Income Tax would be: Every living human gets a $10,000 , and then the wage earners pay a "flat tax" (maybe 15%-20%... have to crunch the numbers... see what's fair/reasonable) of all income above that. And by "all income" I mean ALL income. If it's a "stock option" it's income. if it's interest from the bank, it's income. If it's a prize won on a game show, it's income. If it's ANY money that you didn't have before, from ANY "business relation"... it's income You do know that stock options, interest, dividends, and prizes are already income taxed, right? (including those options held within an account by retail investors). Schedule B: interest, dividends Schedule C: business Schedule D: investments Schedule E: rentals & royalties 1040 Line 21: gambling, prizes (value of items as well as $$s), ALL miscellaneous income not subject to SSA
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 0:12:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 4:19:27 GMT -5
My fix for Income Tax would be: Every living human gets a $10,000 , and then the wage earners pay a "flat tax" (maybe 15%-20%... have to crunch the numbers... see what's fair/reasonable) of all income above that. And by "all income" I mean ALL income. If it's a "stock option" it's income. if it's interest from the bank, it's income. If it's a prize won on a game show, it's income. If it's ANY money that you didn't have before, from ANY "business relation"... it's income You do know that stock options, interest, dividends, and prizes are already income taxed, right? (including those options held within an account by retail investors). Schedule B: interest, dividends Schedule C: business Schedule D: investments Schedule E: rentals & royalties 1040 Line 21: gambling, prizes (value of items as well as $$s), ALL miscellaneous income not subject to SSA But not all at the same RATE. That's the difference. The rate is the same no matter the source.
|
|
marvholly
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:45:21 GMT -5
Posts: 6,540
|
Post by marvholly on Jun 9, 2015 6:04:12 GMT -5
I have never unserstood why there is a cap on income for Soc & Medicare taxes. Most years late DH stopped paying into the system in Sept or Oct. Yes, it does raise the TOTAL fed/state/city taxes we pay but, like income tax, it is progressive v regressive like gasoline or sales tax.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 0:12:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 6:35:03 GMT -5
And It isn't just can 70 year olds work. It's can the economy support extending work and also provide jobs for young people coming in.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 9, 2015 6:50:18 GMT -5
Got a question for everyone.
Do the megastars in Hollywood even pay into S.S.? Or the big hedge fund mgrs? IS THEIR PAY STRUCTURED AS SUCH, AS NOT BEING AN EARNED INCOME?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 0:12:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 6:59:14 GMT -5
Wouldn't the be independent contractors? Self employment tax is SS/Medi...
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 9, 2015 7:12:39 GMT -5
Wouldn't the be independent contractors? Self employment tax is SS/Medi... I am not sure. Many have corporations that might somehow, someway supercede the laws...... That is why I am asking.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 9, 2015 7:15:20 GMT -5
I am not really sure I believe just removing the cap on earnings. If you make ten million a year, you would never get anything back compared to what you paid in, unless they raised the maximum payout to match your input, and that would just negate what we are trying to accomplish. I would think raising it to $500,000, maximum, than cut it off.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 0:12:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 7:17:54 GMT -5
Wouldn't the be independent contractors? Self employment tax is SS/Medi... I am not sure. Many have corporations that might somehow, someway supercede the laws...... That is why I am asking. Then the corp would pay them and their taxes, no? Corps are different laws, they don't supersede the law?
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jun 9, 2015 8:08:40 GMT -5
Got a question for everyone. Do the megastars in Hollywood even pay into S.S.? Or the big hedge fund mgrs? IS THEIR PAY STRUCTURED AS SUCH, AS NOT BEING AN EARNED INCOME? yes to the cap. This year it's 118,500
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 9, 2015 8:37:05 GMT -5
And It isn't just can 70 year olds work. It's can the economy support extending work and also provide jobs for young people coming in. I think that's a fair question to be addressed. I already think increasing the age to that limit it too much.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 0:12:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2015 8:39:37 GMT -5
Why does EITC need to be eliminated?
If it does, could it not be better eliminated through minimum wage rules.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 6,987
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Jun 9, 2015 9:04:17 GMT -5
I have to ask why you don't want any part of SS privatized? Honestly, what is the real fear of privatizing a portion that people can collect earlier and having a portion being government controlled that is collected later? I am not opposed to the concept of privatizing a small additional portion of social security, but I am concerned with all the corruption that the company that gets the contract will skim all the gains from the accounts and leave people with no gains. My support would depend on the fees and terms of the accounts. An example was my husbands previous employer's retirement account at Morgan Stanley. I was able to identify about 2.5% in fees on that account, but there were many more fees that I wasn't able to identify. He worked there about 10 years and the account never grew beyond what we and his employer contributed. All the gains went to Morgan Stanley. You can bet when he left that we transferred that account out as soon as it was legally possible, and we got hit with transfer fees on the way out.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 9, 2015 9:11:36 GMT -5
I am not really sure I believe just removing the cap on earnings. If you make ten million a year, you would never get anything back compared to what you paid in, unless they raised the maximum payout to match your input, and that would just negate what we are trying to accomplish. I would think raising it to $500,000, maximum, than cut it off. If you make $10 million a year, I think you're doing well enough that you don't need to worry about getting your SS contribution.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jun 9, 2015 9:12:49 GMT -5
If you want to increase taxes to fund SS shortfalls, then call a deficit tax because when that deficit is no longer and issue, then people will expect the government to stop charging it. Letting the government charge more and make people wait longer may fix it in the short-term, but do you really expect the government to reverse things when that isn't the issue? History says they'll spend any surplus and then if it happens again, try to do the same thing all over again. i like the idea of a deficit tax, actually. i like it very very much. but i think we should also have a "paydown of principle tax". Then break it down into two separate taxes of "deficit spending tax" and "deficit repayment tax." However it should be noted that those taxes are specifically to pay on top of what is already being paid, but what I guess would happen is that the government would use that money for that purpose and then use the money it is currently using on something else...which defeats the purpose.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Jun 9, 2015 9:13:56 GMT -5
I have to ask why you don't want any part of SS privatized? Honestly, what is the real fear of privatizing a portion that people can collect earlier and having a portion being government controlled that is collected later? I am not opposed to the concept of privatizing a small additional portion of social security, but I am concerned with all the corruption that the company that gets the contract will skim all the gains from the accounts and leave people with no gains. My support would depend on the fees and terms of the accounts. An example was my husbands previous employer's retirement account at Morgan Stanley. I was able to identify about 2.5% in fees on that account, but there were many more fees that I wasn't able to identify. He worked there about 10 years and the account never grew beyond what we and his employer contributed. All the gains went to Morgan Stanley. You can bet when he left that we transferred that account out as soon as it was legally possible, and we got hit with transfer fees on the way out. Good point. I don't doubt that it will cost a significant amount of money just tracking millions of private accounts for people. I'm not sure the benefit would be large enough to justify the expense.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,115
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 11:04:56 GMT -5
the total revenue to the treasury is $4.9T. the total US personal income is $13T (2012). therefore, a flat tax would have to be 38%. if you want to break it down by federal, state, and local, the breakdown is approximately 50/30/20. so, the federal tax would have to be 19%, state would end up being 12%, and local would be 7%. www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total_2012USrt_16rs1nkeep in mind, of course that we had a $1T deficit in 2012. that means that we would have to run an additional 20% deficit tax to cover that in 2012, and it was basically 100% federal. that is another 7% federal, for a total of 26%. if we want to pay down the debt on, say, a 30 year interest free schedule, then you can add another 12%, or about 4.4% "debt reduction tax" = 30% i think the flat taxers are significantly underestimating the rate required to set things right. of course, 30% is far less than 41.65%, so any really wealthy person SHOULD be rightly pleased. but of course, they wouldn't be, since most of their income is "unearned". a 30% tax would be over 2x what Romney pays, and about half of what Buffett pays. If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. I admit, freely, that I was guessing on the percentages. (what do you think about my idea of eliminating EITC? I'd hate it, but it needs to be done.) i agree with you. actually, we have BROAD agreement on this subject. we are just not facing reality as a country.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,115
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 11:10:50 GMT -5
FPL = Federal poverty level FRA = full retirement age WFP = windfall provision, ya pay in but cannot collect any more ... or effectively collect. Amount of pension is subtracted from SSA making it a net neutral event The idea of maxing it out at 2x FPL is that those who contribute more should get more Personally I have no fear of privatization as I am not counting on collecting SSA. Fine if I do, fine if I don't [WFP] thanks, Ombud.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,115
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 9, 2015 11:12:11 GMT -5
I have never unserstood why there is a cap on income for Soc & Medicare taxes. Most years late DH stopped paying into the system in Sept or Oct. Yes, it does raise the TOTAL fed/state/city taxes we pay but, like income tax, it is progressive v regressive like gasoline or sales tax. there is no cap for medicare. there is a cap for SS because there is a capped benefit for SS.
|
|