President Obama's tax cuts/increases

I'm the elite that you are talking about and you need to know the facts. The facts are, I am right now paying 55% taxes (between state and federal income tax as well as all the other payroll taxes). Under Obama, I am going to pay 67% of what I make to the state and feds. I know that I am not going to get any sympathy from anyone, but if the shoe was on the other foot, how would YOU really feel?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

Finally, since you brought up the fallacy that 95% will be getting a tax cut, I am going to have to break your bubble and give you the facts. When the Bush tax cuts expire, EVERYONE'S taxes that pays taxes now are going up. Yes, there is a one time rearrangement of income of a whole $13 per week for certain people making a certain amount of $$$, but the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will wipe that out with no problem. Look it up yourself. It really does not make any sense at all; let's raise taxes on the business people that pay a disproportionate share of taxes in a really bad recession, and somehow this will make enough money to pay for the programs that Obama is proposing? That really does not make sense to me at all. Wishing and hoping is not much of a plan to me, and with Obama, it sure appears to be amateur hour.

I'm with Rush, I hope that every one of his socialism schemes fails miserably, they really make no sense to me. Socialism is not the answer -- it did not make this country great, nor will it in the future. I for one do not want to rely on the government for anything; they screwed up Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, and now we want them to take care of our health care in this country -- this is truly crazy.

2010 will be an interesting election year to say the least .....

quote:

I for one do not want to rely on the government for anything

National defense? Fire protection? Drinking water? Sewer service? Power and natural gas regulation/safety? Public roads? Interstate highway system? Drug, food, chemical inspection/approval? Working conditions, hospital safety,doctor licensing?

I for one would not want to live in a country where the government provided nothing for its citizens.

Larry

P.S. - Compared to my current income, if I was to earn enough money (or have others do the work to provide me with such an income) and join you in your higher tax level, I'm pretty sure I'd gladly pay 67% of what I made when I looked at what I had left over.

I think the reality is we do need basic services, but most of these "services" need an audit. We pay for services that are abused and not very well managed. Before Obama keeps funding more government programs, I think he needs to take a hard look at making the ones we already have better. He's already made it clear that the same ol washington is being appointed to managing these agencies. So much for change.

quote:

He's already made it clear that the same ol washington is being appointed

Sadly, for the most part, that is true. Not what I was hoping for, but not really a big surprise.

Only time will tell what will come of all this.

Larry

I am not going to argue that we do not need these services either as much as we need clean air and clean water -- Larry, that is not the point. The point is that whatever the government touches, it gets screwed up and very expensive. When the guy from the government says, I'm the government and I am here to help, that is when you really need to run for the hills. This guy just wants more from you, more money, more control over your life. I've got news for you, Obama is that guy.

Take a look at your 401K, mine has gone down over 50%, and at some point, people have to stop blaming Republicans for everything. At some point, those that are responsible will have to take the heat. Remember, the Republicans stopped controlling Congress in 2006 .... Here is another fact that is hard to argue with. With all the jobs and economic activity going down, you would think that the government would have to tighten its belt too -- well guess what. That is not happening -- they are doing the opposite. Did you look at your 401K? Wall Street is not happy with the way things are going either -- and this is their guy.

So again, Hope & Change and Yes We Can sounds more and more like good bumper sticker slogans and now all of us are going to pay the price for 52% of Americans that made the wrong choice. Does anyone remember the late 70's, well hold onto your wallets, because I am just wondering what inflation is going to do after the printing presses melt down from printing all of that money -- see my 401K comment again ......

Our Government...
This is the bunch that took over running the Mustang Ranch (whore house) out side Reno Nv. They couldn't make it selling A** and booze!
What makes them think they can run the Country?

quote:

Did you look at your 401K? Wall Street is not happy with the way things are going either -- and this is their guy.

I really hate to do this but Bush was one of those holier then thou ass!@#$ who wants to get rid of SS and set up private savings plans?? Unless the government is willing to insure our 401k's they will never be as stable as a defined pension.
As far as Wall Street and the banks go screw them they got us into this mess along with the lax regulation the corporate culture that said regulation was the reason they couldnt make the money they should be making. Playing the stock market is just like gambling and if you dont want to gamble then take your money out of it!
Regulation needs to be in place for the reasons they were put into play after the Great Depression.
Sorry but people sure do forget the history of this country.

Someone please explain why it is fair for any one person to pay a higher percentage for tax then another? If we would just establish a flat tax rate for everyone with no writeoffs and deductions it would be a much more fair system. Why should some get penalized a high percentage just for being smart enough to make more?
Just my 2 cents.

quote:

Why should some get penalized a high percentage just for being smart enough to make more?
Just my 2 cents.

For starters, 'smart enough' has somewhere along the way been corrupted to be allowed to include:

fraud, deception, theft, total lack of any moral code, total disregard for worker safety, total disregard for the environment, total disregard for the future of a company as long as the current management can 'get theirs', merger actions designed to negate pension plans, etc, etc.

Larry

I think the libs on this thread are really missing something important. Socialism will never make this country great (It has not anywhere else that I am aware). Capitalism has its faults, yes; but it still has made this country the envy of the world. Capitalism will always have recessions along with boom times -- if you know anything about the history then you will realize that this has occurred many times in the past. I do not think it is any reason to throw that away, so we can have an economy like what, France or Germany?

I like the flat tax idea too -- but the libs will always get out the class warfare thing as they have for the last 50 years. Maybe we should all do nothing, get socialized medicine, live off from the government with welfare, and hope that some rich b@$t@rd pays for it all. Sounds fair to me.

Larry, the other thing you said about water, sewer, fire departments etc... The only thing that is supported by my income tax is the military that you mentioned, and Obama is going to cut this so Russia and China will be emboldened to have air bases in Cuba again -- I am going to love to see how Team Obama talks their way out of this one. I pay my sewer and water to the City. I pay the gas bill to another outfit. I pay my medical insurance to someone else so my family can have this too. The Interstate highway system was paid not from income taxes, but from use taxes every time you purchase gasoline or register your car. So again, you are talking from emotion and not facts. My taxes are going up to 67%, this is the aggregate of state and federal income taxes along with all of the other payroll taxes. This will go to fund the trillions that is being spent on my behalf that I really do not agree with. So to ever get me to agree that this is a good deal, never is a long time, but I really do not think the money is being well spent on any of this pork in these spending bills.

OSOFAST, you think that Bush is the bogey man? Well, the Dems have been controlling Congress since 2006, and while they have been the majority, the market has tanked. Again, it will take a while for this to sink in, but check your investments in your 401k and tell me that somehow, magically, that this is the minority in Congress' issue.

P.S. You also say that you would be glad to have my income -- I bet you would, without the responsibility that goes along with it. But you would have to work damn hard and hope that you do not go under as there is a lot of risk in a private business, and no one will be coming to bail me out if anything goes wrong, especially now. There is a lot of responsibility in my job that you will never know -- what is that saying, grass is always greener on the other side of the fence? Certainly applies here.

Larry,

Stop believing everything you read, it's a government conspiracy! Love you to death man, but your political views border on communism.

People need to take a hard look at other countries, their government and tax structures and how well off their citizens are. Better still go experience some of that then come back and tell me the America Dream isn't alive and kickin'. And yes I've lived on 4 continents and physically worked in excess of 10 Countries.

The welfare state system ultimately fails, as a few have to work to feed and support the masses. Uneducated immigrants flock toward a better life (read: easy handouts) and before you know it your tax dollar is supporting Snr Gomez or Mr Singh and each of their 25 kids and extended family.

Part of the reason I got out of the UK was I got fed up with seeing all the surf bums living on the dole, surfing and smokin' weed all day every day on my tax dollar. If that weren't enough the Country opened the flood gates for every immigrant man, wife, extended family & dog to come and get free benefits in the name of shared wealth'. Well the UK is totally f*%$#d in my opinion and I see the same pattern evolving here.

Of course everyone who wants a free ride is going to advocate the welfare state/share the wealth policies. On the other hand those that still believe in the true American Dream will continue to see that the 'equality' this country offers is in the equal opportunity for everyone....but you gotta get off your ass and do something to make it happen....if you don't want to do that then don't come to me looking for handouts.

Ok my 2 cents ... If they continue to raise taxes on the rich ( your business owners ) for example .. there will not be any business owners .. let me burst your bubble .. it doesnt pay to be in business .. EVERY DAY we are hit with a new tax, rule, or regualtion that cost money .. this reduces profit margins and business owner start to think .. maybe I close up .. put my money in the bank and go work for someone else .. that what your seeing out there.

I believe in a fair safe work place .. but the tide has change drastically. The utility bills, safety equipment, stolen tools, stolen and wasted materials, leaving early, long coffee breaks, long lunches, and missing work days all contribute to loss in profits. Then on top businesses get taxed on Unemployment when you lay their sorry ass off because of any one of these reasons .

So if you keep hammering our business owners then tax the shit out of them .. there will not be ANY BUSINESSES left ...thats why they are closing up. All I ask is if your going to raise the Taxes, add regualations, change a saftey rule ...thats going to add to the cost of doing business ...let me know a eyar in advance so I can raise my prices ... and add it to the hourly rate to send a technician to your house ...so it dont come out of my profit of 10% which is also too low to be in business.

Ron

quote:

Originally posted by LF - TP 2511:
P.S. - Compared to my current income, if I was to earn enough money (or have others do the work to provide me with such an income) and join you in your higher tax level, I'm pretty sure I'd gladly pay 67% of what I made when I looked at what I had left over.

"Others do the work to provide me with the income"????????

Larry, if that's how it works, then what the heck are you waiting for?? Go start a business, have others "do the work " for you and watch the cash roll in. Let me know how it works out.

I'll tell you why you haven't. Because there is a lot of risk involved, and everyone knows running a business is a lot of work, stress and long hours; you work your balls off. Nobody is sitting around while others earn their money.

Will ( only 1 ball. I lost the other in a bizzare gardening accident)

quote:

you think that Bush is the bogey man? Well, the Dems have been controlling Congress since 2006, and while they have been the majority, the market has tanked

I feel that Bush is the WORST President im MY lifetime, I think Reagan was one of the best, Clinton rode the wave that Reagan started. The biggest downfall to our economy has been
1)Free Trade Ross Perot had it right, the giant sucking sound. The people in this country are laid off because the products they used to build are now made overseas. How can they afford to buy what is being sold???
2) Deregulation, the means to the end does not make sense to me, started by Nixon, expanded by Reagan, helped along by Clinton. This started the banks giving loans to people who could not afford them, and when Free Trade got into high gear after Clinton left office. They lost there jobs and well you know the rest of that story.
Also the modification of the bankruptcy laws that leave the average person paying back what they owe. But the Big Business can walk away from all of their bad decisions. This was done under the last Bush, as a side note the credit card companies were major players in the push for the new bankruptcy laws, and as soon as they got them the credit card companies were targeting the poorest of our country to start using credit cards. Of course these same people were not allowed credit prior to the change in these laws because they could use bankruptcy to let them get clear of these debts.
I can go on and on the effects of the deregulation that has us here. The main reason we are where we are is Greed and Power. Madoff, Stanford, FANNIE MAE
I hope our new president can get this country back on its feet. But like the others have said he to seems to be running the status quo.
3) A flat tax system would be so nice, no refunds everyone pays the same percentage(thats what was done in Iraq).
I have a problem with the Social Security taxes. This years limit is capped at around $104,000. So why... someone who makes say $104K pays the same amount that Bill Gates pays????
Ok my soap box is over.
Jeff

Hey guys, I don't tkink the governemet wants to go back to the (what did I see) 91% during the Eisenhower years. Those were good years for business weren't they? Personnaly as a Canuck I wouldn't live anywhere else, but there is a need for social medecine, good education and some form of 'audited' city, state, federal managed programs. I peronally can't believe US medical cost, and how about electricity. Then cutbacks on stuff like levys in New Orleans. The lobbyists are the one running the country(ies). They pushed and allowed many things that killed local, domestic busineses and industry. (WallyMart and free-er trade) And then to top it off all those f*kin mortgages that were packaged and sold on Wall Street were the main reason Wall Street crashed. ( hey I guess lobyists and COEs were just thinking about the short term payoff)

Look at all the 'stuff' we own. The average person buys it on credit and then pays the minimum payment so they can buy more next month. The Italians, Polish, Greeks... that came to NorthAmerica after the WW11 are the one who helped build the econmy we knew. They had 2-3 jobs worked 18 hours a day and often spent as little as possible so they could buy a house, or start a business. Meanwhile grandma babysat the grandkids and all the adults were working. Now it seems the Eastern Europeans are no longer the majority of immigrants. The new imigrants are taking those jobs we don't want, cabbies, gas station, restaurants, convenience stores all those businesses that handle CASH (the underground economy). Can you or I say we only made $50 today, no our boss or the accountant states exactly how much most of us earned. Now if you are the business owner you may have a few perks on the side, but if you are the CEO of a large corporation the perks are exponential.
Usually the smart person who has a larger income will have more 'deductions' (hopefully it is not the interest on your mortgage), business expenses from a (or more) business(es) is a good example. To expect to get government services without paying taxes is ridiculous. Even at 35% tax it is still a good return, now add you health benefits cost then cost of higher education ( be it yours or your kids) and you will see you tax ratio. Now I am not saying there isn't a need for better audits, but we are splitting hairs.
There is no such thing as a free lunch

First ...

Thank you everyone for keeping civil with one another. This really is a very mature group of guys here. You impress me with your ability to broach a subject that is so "close to home" and polarizing while remaining respectful of one another. Kudos.

I have my own thoughts on the subject of taxation. I am neither liberal or conservative, democrat or republican. These are just my observations, I am in no way trying to defend any ideology, politician or party.

I am in the highest tax bracket too, based solely upon my salary derived from my weekday job, supervising control system technicians for a large utility. Here in southern California, my income should hardly qualify for the highest tax bracket, but I am single and have no dependents, and there you have it. Almost makes me want to remarry ... well ... errrrr .... almost.

One of the unfair aspects of the US tax code, it does not recognize the regional differences in the cost of living. Somebody earning my salary in Arkansas would certainly be amongst the wealthy, but not in southern California, not in the San Francisco Bay area and not in the greater New York City area. A person in my same position in Arkansas does not make the same salary I do, because the unions and our employers recognize the regional differences in the cost of living; but the federal government does not.

Something to realize about Larry's chart, it only shows one variable, the highest tax rate. What it doesn't show is at what income the highest tax rate cuts in. I guarantee you the government does not ever lower its income. For every time they lower the tax rate, they also lower the level of income (tax brackets) at which the various tax rates apply. The government collects statistics, they know exactly how many people are in each incremental tax bracket, they know exactly how much those tax brackets must be juggled in order maintain their income when the tax rates are lowered. And they do exactly that.

Another variable are the tax deductions. When Regan lowered the tax rates, the tax code also changed and I no longer qualified for several of the deductions I had previously qualified for. The net result, I paid the same amount of income tax.

The final variable in this picture is the cost of living index. The government keeps pruning the factors that contribute to that number. For instance housing & energy are not part of the cost of living index. So the tax code (and cost of living based raises for the working man) does not keep up with the true rate of inflation. Which is why I find myself in the highest tax bracket.

I don't know one working person who opposes a flat rate tax, but it is always opposed vigorously in congress by both parties, by our elected officials who are supposed to represent the desire of their constituents. Lately I have come to believe it would be better to eliminate income tax and institute a federal sales tax to replace it. Then it would be in the governments best interest to stimulate sales within our borders. I remain fully supportive of a welfare system to help those who find themselves in temporary distress. Everybody should have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs during life's most trying moments. That's just compassion, I don't think that makes me a communist or even a socialist. My mention of socialism brings me to the last thing I want to mention ... an amusing point ... there would be no Pantera, Mustang, Hot Rod Lincolns, Sunbeam Tiger, Shelby Cobra, Noble, Saleen S7 or Ford GT40 if it weren't for a fairly well known socialist, Mr Henry Ford. His idea to produce an automobile that the average man could afford, and to pay his workers a wage that would allow them to purchase the goods they produced, were inspired by the socialist ideals he believed in.

Will ( only 1 ball. I lost the other in a bizzare gardening accident) .... YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD MAN ... YOU KNOW I WITH YOU ON THIS ONE !

So why... someone who makes say $104K pays the same amount that Bill Gates pays???? BECAUSE BILL GATES AND ANYONE WHO MAKES OVER 104K IS PROBABLY PLANNING THAT THE LIFSTYLE THEY WILL LIVE AFTER RETIREMENT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TO LIVE THEN COLLECTING SS WHEN THEY RETIRE ?

GEORGE ... Almost makes me want to remarry ... well ... errrrr .... almost. MARRY A MEXICAN SHE WILL COOK CLEAN AND WASH YOUR CLOTHES WITH YOU STILL IN THEM ...LOL

RON

I pulled this excerpt from the following webpage: http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm

While the study is from 2003, the information is still valid.

* Although taxes paid by corporations, measured as a share of the economy, rose modestly during the boom years of the 1990s, they remained sharply lower even in the boom years than in previous decades. According to OMB historical data, corporate taxes averaged 2 percent of GDP in the 1990s. That represented only about two-fifths of their share of GDP in the 1950s, half of their share in the 1960s, and three-quarters of their share in the 1970s.

* The share that corporate tax revenues comprise of total federal tax revenues also has collapsed, falling from an average of 28 percent of federal revenues in the 1950s and 21 percent in the 1960s to an average of about 10 percent since the 1980s.

* The effective corporate tax rate — that is, the percentage of corporate profits that is paid in federal corporate income taxes — has followed a similar pattern. During the 1990s, corporations as a group paid an average of 25.3 percent of their profits in federal corporate income taxes, according to new Congressional Research Service estimates. By contrast, they paid more than 49 percent in the 1950s, 38 percent in the 1960s, and 33 percent in the 1970s.

* Corporate income tax revenues are lower in the United States than in most European countries. According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, total federal and state corporate income tax revenues in the United States in 2000, measured as a share of the economy, were about one-quarter less than the average for other OECD member countries. Thirty-five years ago, the opposite was true — corporations in the United States bore a heavier burden than their European counterparts.

-----------------

Seems to me the Corporations of this nation have done a pretty good job of lowering their share of supporting this country in recent decades. Wonder where the money is coming from if not from them? Gee, think real hard and you'll figure this out.

One Nation, under the corporations and for the corporations. And yet they still scream they are being taxed to death.

And a lot of you guys seem to have fallen for their line hook, line and sinker.

Larry

quote:

Something to realize about Larry's chart, it only shows one variable, the highest tax rate.

Okay, then how about this chart?

Maybe this one will get some thinking started...

This was from a report prepared by the staff of the US Senate Joint Committee on Taxation, dated April 15,2008

From the same report.

Seems we always hear a lot about how reducing the Capital Gains tax would somehow benefit the economy. Right?

Wages and salaries are the basis for most individual income. Capital gains income comes from investments, not something the average Joe trying to make things stretch from paycheck to paycheck even has. The richer taxpayers have investment income, and we constantly hear a whole lot of how reducing the capital gains tax will stimulate the economy by releasing money for job creation.

Seems to me reducing wage and salary taxes would release a lot more money into the economy.

To me,the bottom line for these charts is this:

Why are the corporations and the rich always complaining, through their controlled media and politicians, about how bad off they have it?

And why do so many regular Joes believe reducing the Fat Cats' share will somehow improve things for those below them?

quote:

Originally posted by LF - TP 2511:
... Although taxes paid by corporations, measured as a share of the economy, rose modestly during the boom years of the 1990s, they remained sharply lower even in the boom years than in previous decades ... During the 1990s, corporations as a group paid an average of 25.3 percent of their profits in federal corporate income taxes, according to new Congressional Research Service estimates. By contrast, they paid more than 49 percent in the 1950s, 38 percent in the 1960s, and 33 percent in the 1970s ...

The 1990s was the Clinton era. Our current president has filled his cabinet with former members of the Clinton cabinet, including Hillary herself. This doesn't bode well that anything will change in regards to corporate taxation or corporate influence on government. The majority of politicians on the national scene, both democrat & republican, received substantial campaign funding from the big multi-national corporations. This is why I belong to neither of those parties.

If you believe that a plan to take our nation back from the corporations is needed, then we see eye to eye on this issue. This is why I recommend for people to vote third party in every election. The corporations have not as yet invested campaign funding in third party candidates.

The politicians in Washington are not what makes our nation great, they are often a shame to our nation. The greatness of this nation is the spirit of the people, the productivity of the middle class worker and the entrepreneurial spirit of the small businessmen like many members here. The US has been a fertile bed for innovation, invention, solutions and even idealism. The US is the first to respond when another nation is struck by disaster. We are a generous people. Our government has some big problems, but its still less oppressive than most. Denis C mentioned a couple of the areas where our nation lags, education & healthcare, I'm hoping that American innovation can find solutions to bolster these weak areas that fit into the American model, rather than forcing the American square peg into a European round hole. For instance, contributing to education and health care would certainly be a good way for the corporations to give-back to America, no?

-G

Quote from George
"""I remain fully supportive of a welfare system to help those who find themselves in temporary distress"""
Too bad most aren't using it on a temporary basis.
Alot of people are required to take urin samples for work. How about those on welfare? If those that are making the money for welfare need to take a test, shouldn't those receiving take a test? Seems only fair.
Will

BECAUSE BILL GATES AND ANYONE WHO MAKES OVER 104K IS PROBABLY PLANNING THAT THE LIFSTYLE THEY WILL LIVE AFTER RETIREMENT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TO LIVE THEN COLLECTING SS WHEN THEY RETIRE ?
Ron do you think Bill Gates will apply for his SS benefits when he reaches retirement age? I think he will.

quote:

The majority of politicians on the national scene, both democrat & republican, received substantial campaign funding from the big multi-national corporations. This is why I belong to neither of those parties.

Same here I do not belong to either of the largest political parties.

quote:

I remain fully supportive of a welfare system to help those who find themselves in temporary distress. Everybody should have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs during life's

quote:

BECAUSE BILL GATES AND ANYONE WHO MAKES OVER 104K IS PROBABLY PLANNING THAT THE LIFSTYLE THEY WILL LIVE AFTER RETIREMENT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TO LIVE THEN COLLECTING SS WHEN THEY RETIRE ?

George I agree, the reason I put your and Rons quote together is my wife works for the unemployment commission here(our UE rate last month was 11.6%, highest in the country) but my point is that Kim has seen people apply for UE benefits who had earnings in excess of $600,000 for the year. Now granted I make a good wage, that person who makes $600K will recieve the same benefit I get. Now with Rons estimate of what a person pays and should do for retirment. They should never collect those payments????
Or collect unemployment benefits, I mena with someone earning $600K they should have enough money to not need a measly $372 a week right?? But no they are and able to collect those even if the middle class think they should not need it.
As the saying goes the more you make the more you spend!!
Last point, while I was in business for myself I got to go to every type of house. My clients demographics were average of $35k>. But my point the wealthiest were the tightest bunch around. They did not like paying for anything( please do not take that the wrong way)!! LOL
Well that is how most of them got their money!!!
Jeff

quote:

A lot of people are required to take urine samples for work. How about those on welfare? If those that are making the money for welfare need to take a test, shouldn't those receiving take a test? Seems only fair.
Will

Oh oh. I better check my pulse.

Will and I are in COMPLETE harmony on that statement.

Larry

First Larry,

Your graphs and charts are showing ...just how the corporate tax declined since 1950 because CORPORATIONS LEFT THE USA and dont pay Corporate Tax ! Simple

Next Firgure # 1 Shows how there are more EMPLOYENT TAX and Individual Income Tax because there are MORE EMPLOYEES then business ... why because since 1950 because CORPORATIONS LEFT THE USA ! Simple

Figure # 2 Yes capitals gains tax ...business owners now either RENT because its full tax dedcutable ... or own and property ..DONT SELL IT ... as I said prior .. close up your business put their money in the bank, go to work for some one and..DONT SELL THE PROPERTY ..RENT IT other wise youpay capital gains tax.

In closing I would like to point out .. its come to a point in business that rather then concentrate on YOUR BUSINESS ...you we find oursleves focused more on Regulations, Rules, how to reduce your tax burden, how to keep from paying capitals gains tax ( by structuring your business property ) rather then working IN your business. After a while dong business in the USA is just not worth the risk.

Take a look at the everyday worker. You have your salary, savings, 401K ...you wathc it closely and penny pinch so the paycheck goes a long way.... how would you feel each day if you recieved in the mail a NEW fee, charge, bill invoice that squeeezed away at your pay check ? This is what is happening to business ..

Ron

Ron

quote:

BECAUSE BILL GATES AND ANYONE WHO MAKES OVER 104K IS PROBABLY PLANNING THAT THE LIFSTYLE THEY WILL LIVE AFTER RETIREMENT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TO LIVE THEN COLLECTING SS WHEN THEY RETIRE ?

A couple points .. because Bill Gates IS REQUIRED to pay in to SS he deserves to be paid the 372.00. My point is hes smart enought to know he isnt going to live on that each month.

Next it will NOT be around much longer to collect.


A lot of people are required to take urine samples for work. How about those on welfare? If those that are making the money for welfare need to take a test, shouldn't those receiving take a test? Seems only fair.

Which I totally agree ..which leads me to my Favorite Politician RUDY GULIANI .. he made it that if WELFARE RECIPIANTS in NYC children dont show up for school ..there welfare check is cut .. the theory was that if the children attend school there is a good chance they will leave the Welfare System in one generation.

accobra,

EXACTLY. This is exactly what has been going on. Corporations are moving to another place in the global marketplace to do business more economically.

Larry, look up who is going to be the largest economy in either 2012 or a little later, and guess what, it will not be us unless we get our house in order. You seem to have a lot of time to look up graphs, so look up that one. The USA is quickly becoming second class, and I do not think that all of this socialism is going to help our cause at all -- it will just take us into the hole faster.

Oh yea, my corporation does not pay any income tax as your chart shows. As a subchapter S corporation, tax is only paid by the stockholder -- not the corporation and then the stockholder, so again, your graphs are a little misleading. Hey man, I thought this was supposed to be a transparent discussion of facts.... Now if someone could explain to me why anyone would want to pay the top marginal rate, and then pay that again by the stockholder, just greek to me. Larry, you sound like a really smart guy, then why do not you start your own business? Why wouldn't you? Sounds like money is falling from the sky. Sounds like you and OSOFAST have started the war on business and business owners along with your guy in the White House. Sorry, but the trickle-up poverty that you guys are talking about is not for me (i.e. Obama's socialist programs).

Again, I was not the one who came up with this topic, but I am sick and tired of listening to the garbage that comes from the left and getting kicked around. They have not walked one step in my shoes, but they are "experts" when it comes to my business and how good I have it. We are on the brink of destroying private businesses -- a lot of them -- really a crying shame. Just too bad that it will have to get a lot worse before it gets better, and then all I will get to do is say ".....told you so....."

Don't worry, it will just be those nasty republicans fault anyway ......

quote:

Next (Social Security) will NOT be around much longer to collect.

For starters, please view this link:
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

It reports that even with NO CHANGES, SS will remain exactly as it is until 2041.

And it goes on to say that after that date, benefit reductions of about 22% would kick in. And if still no changes are made, benefit reductions will rise to 25% by 2082.

Those dates are determined by actuarial methods that some have said are overly pessimistic.

Most discussion on how to 'save' SS centers on cutting benefits, or raising the SS tax rate. These actions (IMHO) are designed to be "feel bad" emotion drivers that are being pushed by those Wall Street interests that wanted to gain control of the SS billions. Now that Wall Street has lost its glamour, you don't hear much talk about diverting the funds to those now-proven-overly-greedy-and-dishonest bastards. Just wait a few years and THAT scam will again pop-up its ugly little head.

The one method (again, IMHO) that will correct the projected SS shortfalls is to remove the cap on the wages subject to SS taxes.

WHAT, RAISE TAXES!!!!!??????

It is a raise in the CAP, not the TAX RATE.

For those of us making less than the cap (currently,$104K) there will be NO CHANGE in our SS taxes or the SS taxes paid by our employers. That, I believe, will include the majority of us who are workers and those of us who are employers.

For those above the cap, yup, you'll pay more taxes as will your employers.

HOW that increased revenue is used has many options: leave benefits the same, increase benefits, sliding scale of increased benefits.

Bottom line is just that one change, that will affect not too many of us, saves the system for all of us.

For a more in-depth look at how to balance SS, go to this link and click a couple of links to download a pdf report, dated February 2005.

http://tinyurl.com/bbaooq

Here is just an excerpt:

Raising the Tax Cap
The maximum wage base for paying Social Security taxes is $90,000 in 2005. Only earnings
up to $90,000 are taxed and counted toward workers’ future benefits. Currently, 6
percent of all workers earn more than the cap. Earnings above the tax cap now account for
15 percent of the aggregate pay of all workers who pay into Social Security, and are expected
to rise to 17 percent of aggregate pay over the next decade (OCAct, 2005b). The
current benefit for one who always earned the maximum amount and retired at age 65 in
2005 is $1,874 a month, or about $22,500 a year.2 The benefit replaces about 25 percent
of the worker’s taxable earnings (OCAct, 2004).
Option #1
If all earned income above $90,000 a year was taxed, but those earnings did not count
toward benefits, Social Security would be solvent. Making this change in 2005 would bring
in enough revenue to remedy 116 percent of the financing shortfall over the next 75 years.
With this change, workers who earn far more than the tax cap would pay considerably more
in taxes. For example, a person making $400,000 a year would pay $19,220 more and his
or her employer would pay a matching amount, for a total increase of $38,440. The
maximum benefit would be no higher than under current law. Ever since Social Security
began, the level of wages that are taxed has been linked to the level of wages that count
toward benefits. This proposal would break that link.

--------------------

Yes, SS will face some funding issues. But the sky isn't falling quite yet

Larry

quote:

Oh yea, my corporation does not pay any income tax as your chart shows. As a subchapter S corporation, tax is only paid by the stockholder -- not the corporation and then the stockholder,

Why is that?

quote:

A couple points .. because Bill Gates IS REQUIRED to pay in to SS he deserves to be paid the 372.00. My point is hes smart enought to know he isnt going to live on that each month.

Next it will NOT be around much longer to collect.

The $372 I quoted is the weekly unemployment benefit that Michigan pays out, and I agree wholeheartedly Ron.
At my last SS benefit summary at age 67 which is the age a American citizen can receive full SS benefits, I will be eligible to receive in the neighborhood of $1800 a month. Surley not enough to live on in 20 plus years. But like you said it may not be there for me, I do save what I can for my older years. But I do what I can.
The reason SS will not be there is the government in their wisedom decided to raid the SS cofers in the late 80's to early 90's to pay for budget items, instead of leaving a fully funded SS system for our citizens.

quote:

Sounds like you and OSOFAST have started the war on business and business owners along with your guy in the White House. Sorry, but the trickle-up poverty that you guys are talking about is not for me (i.e. Obama's socialist programs).

I have not started a war, and I am sorry that you feel that way.
But FDR had to battle the same rhetoric to get the New Deal to fly also, and his plan brought this country from the brink of destruction.
By the way my name is Jeff.

quote:

Larry, look up who is going to be the largest economy in either 2012 or a little later, and guess what, it will not be us unless we get our house in order. You seem to have a lot of time to look up graphs, so look up that one. The USA is quickly becoming second class, and I do not think that all of this socialism is going to help our cause at all -- it will just take us into the hole faster.

I'd address you by name, but since you never sign your postings....

Countries do not stay at the top forever. Never have, never will. So whether the "fall' of the USA is this generation, or three, or thirty, more down the road, get ready for it.

But that does not mean the end of life as we know it.

Would anyone argue the citizens of Australia, New Zealand, England, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Japan and on and on have miserable, all-work-and-no-play existences? Following your implied logic, since they are not at the "top" they must be "second class". But their citizens have jobs, have homes, buy cars, televisions and boats, raise children, take vacations, collect art, go out for dinner, have family reunions.... In short, their lives do not suck just because their countries are not NUMERO UNO.

Yes, I do worry that the following generations (my children and their children) will face a different American economy than the current model. But I'm not so sure, as you seem to be, that such a difference will mean an end to all things American.

I honestly believe this country is one of the best to live in, and will remain so for many generations to come.

It will change, yes. But relax, it will not die.

Larry

Hey guys thanks for holding back....

I read this whay back when I was in university (college) so I hope I can quote it right. After the war many were seeking social assistance in the Montreal area. The mayor at the time found a solution and these people were asked to assist in building the Montreal Botanical gardens as unemployment insurance did not exist at the time. Today, these public gardens are amazing. The mayor helped people to stay proud and their efforts are still for everyone to see 60 years later. Unfortunately today I know of people working for cash and then trying to get either social assitance or unemployment insurance and even workmen's compensation. Simply not fair.

As to participating in UI, SS and other social security nets, admitedly it may not sound fair or you may never use it but that's par for the game.

As shown by Larry's charts the Govmt has a specific required budget. If the corporations don't pay it or if you let those corporations have headquarters in Japan(car companies) or in Switzerland (EvilGay) or in Barbados Oceanliners)or..any other country period.
Tax revenue has to come from somewhere.

Denis

My name is Mark.

If you were in my shoes, I truly believe you would more than likely have a different viewpoint than what you guys are saying. I guess all I can say is look at where we are right now with what the President has or has not been doing. Dow is taking a dive, 401k's have lost a lot of value that are in the stock market, and his appointments have been extremely disappointing to say the least. We have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, I have lost count of the others who have bowed out, I am assuming for the same tax cheating -- and the rest of us are supposed to be worse than these guys? I was not raised that way, and I certainly do not run my business that way.

The money has to come from somewhere, and like I have said before, with Obama's war on business, it will be very difficult for him politically moving forward if there is no or small improvements. How many trillions have we spent on the war on poverty, and that has been a complete failure. Obama can raise taxes on business as much as he wants, watch them leave this country for somewhere else to operate. This is what has been going on for years. Jeff and Larry can quote the government charts all they want, but it comes down to the basics. Raise taxes on corporations, and they will go somewhere else. Look at GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Yes, they are in trouble now for a multitude of reasons, but there are other car manufacturers in America that are making it without government bailouts (yes, I know Ford has not taken any money yet). Honda, Toyota, and BMW all manufacture vehicles in the USA, and they are not asking for bailout money. Why is that? They have structured their companies in such a way that they are more competitive than GM and Chrysler, and having manufacturing all over the globe is one reason for that.

As far as getting back to basics, again, I will say that, in my opinion, that we are going backwards with redistribution of income, socialist medicine (rather rationing of medicine), increasing of the size of government like we have never seen, bailouts in the billions of dollars to private companies that do not deserve it, and increasing of taxes on a minority that is already paying. The top 25% pay 86% of federal income taxes, and this is up from 84% in 2000. So to say that the "rich" do not pay their fair share is not true. The other statistic that is glaring is the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of all income taxes. Another way to look at it is in 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. This is from the Wall Street Journal.

Hey Mark, Stats again what part of GNP do those 1% represent ;(
Denis

quote:

Jeff and Larry can quote the government charts all they want, but it comes down to the basics.

Some are government charts, some are from other studies. Mark, it seems to be you're saying you don't like charts and figures, but you then go on to use them for your examples.

We all know figures can be stated to support any viewpoint. But if you view enough of them, you can hopefully learn enough to at least get a somewhat accurate picture.

quote:

Honda, Toyota, and BMW all manufacture vehicles in the USA, and they are not asking for bailout money. Why is that?

They've already gotten their bailouts, both direct and indirect.

I can hear you now... "What the heck is Larry blathering about??!!"

Why do you think the overseas auto firms located in the industry-poor south? Because the south is known to have a lower concentration of good paying jobs, meaning newcomers can get labor more cheaply. Also because those states bent over backwards, each trying to outdo the other, and gave those companies HUGE tax concessions, free land and lord knows what else. And also, those new factories do not have decades of retired workers and the associated pension/health care costs.

That is why.

Larry

Great reads:
http://www.treas.gov/education...ts/taxes/ustax.shtml
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/a...0,,id=164272,00.html

Oh yea, my corporation does not pay any income tax as your chart shows. As a subchapter S corporation, tax is only paid by the stockholder -- not the corporation and then the stockholder, so again, your graphs are a little misleading.

MARK .. me too my Mechanical Busness is an S corp also adn I get taxed on profit personally so which GRAPH am I on? ?? LOL I just formed 2 LLC's to protect myself against the SKATERS.

All I can say is I believe in going back to the basics. I was brought up and trainined by the generation that lived during the depression and WW2 .. old world values are where its at ... I prefer to hire the older generation .. they have loyalty, work ethics, dedicaton, and I dont become a over priced baby sitter ... but they are all at retirement age ... who are we going to pass the baton in the relay race too!

Ron

quote:

Honda, Toyota, and BMW all manufacture vehicles in the USA, and they are not asking for bailout money. Why is that?

Larry you have to start asking more diffcult questions ... the answer is simple ... toyota, bmw etc have only 30,000 retireies theya re paying helath care benefits for ..the big 3 are paying for 500,000 each year ...so lets do the math 22000 family plan x 500,000 = 110,000,000 is that 110 million per year 1 / 10 of a billion ? just ot start and you didnt sell one car.

Take a look at Brazil .... they are uneffected by the global market .... why because they dont allow you to bring parts and raw materials into the country .. I seen a sign 1.50 ethonal 3.50 petro ... which one would you buy ?

Ron

Ron, I think we covered that in a previous thread. GM and Ford tried to dump those retirement resposibilities by selling (spining-off) Delphi and Visteon. Then had to rebuy the white collar workforce or they would have gone under. In Canada Ford's white collar pensions are in a self sustaining trust fund. The trouble occurs when they use profits to pay pensions. Singer sewing machine was one early example, Tyco was another. There is a concern for Social Security as the forecast puts a heavy strain on the funds as the baby boomers will start retiring in BULK in 2010-2025 and there will be more retirees than people in the workforce.
SS and pensions were invented as a marketing tool because train engineeers were not retiring and putting travelers and cargo at risk. It was also a tool to attract the best employes. The whole scheme was good well into the the mid-80's when people started to retired earlier (or were offered packages to leave early) and lived longer: prior to that the average retiree only drew 2-3 years on their pension. Think back to your teens a 65 year old man was old, today we see people living a full life well into their 80's and many living to almost 100.
Auto sector employees used to draw 85% of their salaries when plants were shut down (in Canada the goverment has allowed these employees to go on unemployment when shut down occurs as part of the 'bailout' therefore reducing the drain on corporate funds). In the late 90's Jack Nasser (at Ford) tried to spin-off the assembly plants so they would be part of Visteon and the Company could walk away from grandfathered contracts and then just pay cars per unit (like parts).

Should companies walk away from their (let's call it unwritten - some written. I know I had a written contract when I started) social contracts total chaos would occur. What would happen to your employes if you called a meeting tomorow and told them starting today if you say with me I'll cut your pay by $10/hr. You'd loose half your workforce, hire newbees and be baysitting again. The numbers at Ford 3 years ago were that the labour cost per car were 5-8% of vehicle cost and marketing was $3500 to $4000 per unit. Profit on a basic Focus was $800 up to $15,000 on a Navigator. The companies have nickeled and dimed suppliers, now they will posture the governement for funds. Yeah I know the situation has changed with the crash but management have anticicipated a doomsday scenario (that why Ford was ready)

I dont quite agree with flushing pension responsibilites:company pension vs self managed 401K. There has to be a middle of the road situation. Perhaps a joint pension where the company participates in transferable 401K. Our fathers always told us:'be good to your employer and they will be good to you'. .Not so sure if that is still true, but in my heart I want to believe it still applies.

The auto manufactures are victims in this case. The true culprits in this CRASH are the Wall Street fund managers and insurance people who insured those funds.