agreed Russ - but to a much lesser extent. A middle-class worker will have a much smaller percentage of discretionary income to invest. Sure, you can say that even a low-income worker is liable to have some money invested in a retirement plan - a very tiny percentage of his money, but compare that to the richest who have a huge portion of their worth invested in dividend-bearing securities.
who said I hated the rich or Bill Gates? regressive taxes and tax plans heavily favoring the rich are a little ridiculous. Bill has more money than 1,000 people could spend in 1,000 lifetimes - and you support cutting his taxes?
You are a few years behind on the wage cap. For 2003 the Social Security wage base is $87,000. The Social Security Administration takes 6.2% of your money. The corresponding Medicare tax is an additional 1.45% on every dollar of your salary. Your employer matches these.
This means that Bill Gates pays more in one year for Medicare than you or I earn in wages.
<< <i>Anyone catch Bush's tax cut plan? send $100 checks to middle-class workers and $100,000,000 dividend tax-cut checks to the richest. Pretty shameful plan if you ask me. >>
Baccaruda- The tax cut is all about job creation and stimulating the economy. How many people do you know who work for poor people??? I bet you don't.
Want to create jobs? Put more money in the hands of entrepreneurs with successful ideas and/or successful companies. They then will expand their operations, or create yet another new company, to hire NEW workers. See how that works?
Middle class workers with children will receive a LOT more than $100 in tax cuts.
By the way, you must have failed your economics classes in college.
<< <i>but compare that to the richest who have a huge portion of their worth invested in dividend-bearing securities. >>
I do compare it, and find that it isn't relevant. The rich bear the lion's share of the tax burden. They always have. Fully half the tax revenue generated is paid by only 5% of the top income earners. If one wants to talk about who is getting screwed, it ain't the middle-class.
The more you tax wealth generation, the less incentive there is to grow businesses and take risks. The willingness to do those things is the primary generator of economic growth and jobs - those very same jobs needed by that very same middle-class.
The argument also fails to recognize the fact that economic status is not static, it is dynamic.
To be technical, the dividend tax cut will help IRA/401k owners only to the extent that it causes stocks in general to rise. Dividends in a qualified plan are not subject to taxation as taxes are deferred. When money is removed from a plan, it is taxed as ordinary income.
The dividend tax cut is most useful for stocks held outside of a retirement plan. The same holds true for the capital gains tax cut.
It is now advantageous to swap your stocks out of your plan [if possible] and to put your income producers [bonds, CDs] into the plan. Then again, the new tax law has a sunset provision.
Want to create jobs? Put more money in the hands of entrepreneurs with successful ideas and/or successful companies
Alright my economics lesson was just lost to the internet gnome. It was good reading too. Oh well, the long and the short of it is:
Interest rates are at historically low levels - this is the cheapest money you'll likely ever borrow in your life. There's already plenty of opportunity for entreprenuers.
$56,000 or $87,000 is irrelevant to the ultra-rich as far as the Social Security debate goes.
<< <i>Then again, the new tax law has a sunset provision. >>
Hopefully, they'll pay as much attention to it as they do when they add one to a tax rate increase.
Which brings up another point. Everybody keeps calling this a "tax" cut. It isn't. It's a tax "rate" cut. As early as Kennedy's rate cuts, we know that lowering tax rates generates more revenue, not less revenue. The private sector - meaning we, the people - is far more efficient at managing and leveraging resources than the government.
A republican was walking down the street to work when he was approached by a homeless man who asked him if he could spare a few dollars. The republican thought about it for a moment, took out his wallet, handed the man $20 and his business card. He told the homeless man to stop by his shop the next day and he would see if there were a few odds and ends he could do to earn the $20 and maybe, if he did a good job, could work for some more money. The republican continued to walk down the street. Thirty seconds later, the homeless man approached a democrat walking down the street and asked him for a few extra bucks. The democrat smiled and took out a piece of paper from his wallet and wrote down the address and telephone number of the nearest welfare office, advising the homeless man that they could provide him with assistance. The homeless guy complained that he really could just use a couple bucks RIGHT NOW please, so the democrat said "OK..Hold on a sec". The democrat then ran down the street, found the republican, took $20 out of his pocket, kept $15 for administrative expenses, ran back to the homeless man and gave him $5....
Andy
We are finite beings, limited in all our powers, and, hence, our conclusions are not only relative, but they should ever be held subject to correction. Positive assurance is unattainable. The dogmatist is the only one who claims to possess absolute certainty.
Two liberals, walking to work one day, turned the corner and saw a badly beaten lady laying on the sidewalk screaming that she was mugged, and that her purse was stolen. The liberals looked at each other and said "We better find the guy who did this, he needs help!
Andy
We are finite beings, limited in all our powers, and, hence, our conclusions are not only relative, but they should ever be held subject to correction. Positive assurance is unattainable. The dogmatist is the only one who claims to possess absolute certainty.
Oh don't you just love the guys that want to talk about Social Security and don't understand anything about it's dynamics or it's history?
Hey Baccaruda! Do you know what your father was paying in Social Security taxes back in 1937 through 1949? How about 1% of the first $3,000 in earnings? $30 per YEAR was the MAXIMUM contribution. Yet, those people who are now retired are earning $1,500+ MONTHLY Social Security checks. In 1962, the contribution rate was 3.125% on the first $4,800 of earnings. A maximum annual contribution of a whopping $150!! In 1972, the contribution rate was 5.2% on only the first $9,000 of earnings. A maximum annual contribution of a whopping $468! As small as that $468 is, it is still more than 15.5 times greater than they paid in 1949!! In 1982, the contribution rate was 6.7% on the first $32,400 of earnings. A maximum annual contribution of $2,170.80. That is more than 72 times greater than they were paying in 1949!
Add it up fellows. Those who are retired have received a monster payout. It is estimated that babyboomers with maximum SS earnings will receive a whopping 1% earnings on their contributions!!! Their children? They will receive NEGATIVE earnings on their contributions. Personally, I believe there will be nothing for them. It will end up being a confiscatory tax for our children! Like it or not, it is generational theft.
no argument from me. Social Security is a failed system and should be abolished - but it never will be. The AARP is by far the largest, strongest lobbying group in the country. Seniors, statistically, are the richest group yet they receive benefits from everyone on the lower-end of the pay-scale. Some guy working at McDonald's is paying 6% of his income (that would likely go for non-discretionary expenses) to a retired doctor (to pay his greens fees) - it makes no sense. People just don't like the thought of starving old people - and that's fine. The system should be based on retired earnings. If you earn more than say $30,000 in retirement, you should be ineligible to receive SS.
Now that there are less taxes to pay on dividends in retirement, it's already a boon for seniors.
Constellatio Collector sevenoften@hotmail.com --------------------------------- "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished!" "If it don't make $" "It don't make cents""
The "rich" pay more taxes BY FAR than everyone else. When there is a tax cut of ANY sort the "rich" will always get the biggest cut. Duh! BTW, I quote the term "rich" because most people don't understand that the "rich" don't get that way by getting high salaries, which is the highest taxable income there is (mainly because of the payroll tax). They get "rich" by investing and starting businesses. Which, I might point out, creates jobs. Hence, tax revenue for Uncle.
The only real way to cut taxes for the poor is to cut the payroll tax. NO politician (dem or rep) is going to do that since the ever-ageing population will kick their ass out of office.
The most recent GREAT idea I saw was Bush's proposal of the "Lifetime Savings Account". This was to be the first step in getting away from the stupid idea of taxing savings, which Washington has bestoed upon us. Of course, the dimwits in Washington have ignored this so far and will probably never happen. As much as I dislike Bush and his foreign "policy" I've liked his tax policies quite a bit.
To answer the question of this thread (what a novel idea!): Conservative when it comes to finance. A bit middle to liberial on some social issues. I'm a bit Libratarian...I guess...hell, I don't really even know what that is. lol
You know what the world's thinnest book is? It's the one authored by Bill Clinton titled THE BOOK OF MORALS. And who wrote the foreword? The Reverend Jessie Jackson.
I am a proud member of the People's Numismatic Revolution Party supporting David Q.Bowers as appointed commrade general secretary of the numismatic proliteriat for life.
Of course, I knew which way most of the questions were leaning.
JJacks
Always buying music cards of artists I like! PSA or raw! Esp want PSA 10s 1991 Musicards Marx, Elton, Bryan Adams, etc. And 92/93 Country Gold AJ, Clint Black, Tim McGraw PSA 10s
I'm a strict Constitutionalist and Patriot, which puts me at odds with the left-wing collectivists of both parties...in particular the Democrats. Our nation wasn't designed for a two party despotic system.
I am happy to say I voted for Alan Keyes but would prefer someone like Walter Williams residing in the White House.
Isn't it Ironic that a anti-liberal and far right winger such as myself thinks that the two finest patriots in our nation today are both black men?
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
The last person you want in the White house is a businessman, a businessman wants money flowing his way, govt needs to make sure money flows everyones way! We very rarely get the right guy in there, he doesnt have enough money to be known!
You can fool man but you can't fool God! He knows why you do what you do!
I dont care how much money someone makes, as long as they dont make it at the expense of others! Everyone that works hard should have a decent standard of living!
You can fool man but you can't fool God! He knows why you do what you do!
I grew up the poor son of a union factory worker and was a janitor for over three years. I've lived for two years in socialist Denmark and two years in socialist Canada. I have experienced hands-on the health care in both and seen the standard of living of the good old working-class people of those countries.
With those experiences under my belt, I believe that big government institutions are bad for the working class folks. Capitalism with minimal government interference and taxes is paradise compared to the socialism that I experienced. What's the use in having universal health care it that means it is universally bad? To see a very hard working professional couple live in government 700 sq. ft. apartments with two kids and a bike and pay 80% of their income in total taxes is really a sad thing to experience.
In the U.S. with 15% of the working classes' paycheck going to social security in addition to another 15% to 25% in federal income taxes; in addition to property taxes, sales taxes, and similar taxes......it's not the really rich that are being taxed to death (relative to their income and wealth...their taxes are very small compared to the working Joe's of this country. The really rich don't have much salary...they have capital gains and therefore pay little social security and income tax relative to their "Total Income."
Do I think we need to tax the very rich more? Heck no....but don't let the liberal's fool you.....it's the working middle class that pay the taxes in this country.
I consider myself a Roosevelt Republican. Fiscally conservative and environmentally liberal. I scored a 23 - between Powell and Bush #1. Born a republican - registered independent for 10 yrs. Clinton made me a Republican again and GWII is now making me think about the Independent side. I don't vote party lines and will vote for a Dem, Ind., etc. if the Rep candidate is some right wing ultra freak (bible thumper).
Comments
While I have an urge to fire away about the rich/poor argument. All it does is make me angry toward the lefties.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
yeah this thread's going bye-bye soon.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
Baccaruda,
You are a few years behind on the wage cap. For 2003 the Social Security wage base is $87,000. The Social Security Administration takes 6.2% of your money. The corresponding Medicare tax is an additional 1.45% on every dollar of your salary. Your employer matches these.
This means that Bill Gates pays more in one year for Medicare than you or I earn in wages.
<< <i>Anyone catch Bush's tax cut plan? send $100 checks to middle-class workers and $100,000,000 dividend tax-cut checks to the richest. Pretty shameful plan if you ask me. >>
Baccaruda- The tax cut is all about job creation and stimulating the economy. How many people do you know who work for poor people??? I bet you don't.
Want to create jobs? Put more money in the hands of entrepreneurs with successful ideas and/or successful companies. They then will expand their operations, or create yet another new company, to hire NEW workers. See how that works?
Middle class workers with children will receive a LOT more than $100 in tax cuts.
By the way, you must have failed your economics classes in college.
Less taxes for the rich mean more money to invest in things such as creating new jobs. Ever been hired by a poor man????
DOOOH!!!!!!!!
<< <i>but compare that to the richest who have a huge portion of their worth invested in dividend-bearing securities. >>
I do compare it, and find that it isn't relevant. The rich bear the lion's share of the tax burden. They always have. Fully half the tax revenue generated is paid by only 5% of the top income earners. If one wants to talk about who is getting screwed, it ain't the middle-class.
The more you tax wealth generation, the less incentive there is to grow businesses and take risks. The willingness to do those things is the primary generator of economic growth and jobs - those very same jobs needed by that very same middle-class.
The argument also fails to recognize the fact that economic status is not static, it is dynamic.
Russ, NCNE
Enjoy the day.........
To be technical, the dividend tax cut will help IRA/401k owners only to the extent that it causes stocks in general to rise. Dividends in a qualified plan are not subject to taxation as taxes are deferred. When money is removed from a plan, it is taxed as ordinary income.
The dividend tax cut is most useful for stocks held outside of a retirement plan. The same holds true for the capital gains tax cut.
It is now advantageous to swap your stocks out of your plan [if possible] and to put your income producers [bonds, CDs] into the plan. Then again, the new tax law has a sunset provision.
Damn I'm off topic.
Alright my economics lesson was just lost to the internet gnome. It was good reading too. Oh well, the long and the short of it is:
Interest rates are at historically low levels - this is the cheapest money you'll likely ever borrow in your life. There's already plenty of opportunity for entreprenuers.
$56,000 or $87,000 is irrelevant to the ultra-rich as far as the Social Security debate goes.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
<< <i>Then again, the new tax law has a sunset provision. >>
Hopefully, they'll pay as much attention to it as they do when they add one to a tax rate increase.
Which brings up another point. Everybody keeps calling this a "tax" cut. It isn't. It's a tax "rate" cut. As early as Kennedy's rate cuts, we know that lowering tax rates generates more revenue, not less revenue. The private sector - meaning we, the people - is far more efficient at managing and leveraging resources than the government.
Russ, NCNE
Thirty seconds later, the homeless man approached a democrat walking down the street and asked him for a few extra bucks. The democrat smiled and took out a piece of paper from his wallet and wrote down the address and telephone number of the nearest welfare office, advising the homeless man that they could provide him with assistance. The homeless guy complained that he really could just use a couple bucks RIGHT NOW please, so the democrat said "OK..Hold on a sec". The democrat then ran down the street, found the republican, took $20 out of his pocket, kept $15 for administrative expenses, ran back to the homeless man and gave him $5....
Andy
First POTD 9/19/05!!
Andy
First POTD 9/19/05!!
Hey Baccaruda! Do you know what your father was paying in Social Security taxes back in 1937 through 1949? How about 1% of the first $3,000 in earnings? $30 per YEAR was the MAXIMUM contribution. Yet, those people who are now retired are earning $1,500+ MONTHLY Social Security checks. In 1962, the contribution rate was 3.125% on the first $4,800 of earnings. A maximum annual contribution of a whopping $150!! In 1972, the contribution rate was 5.2% on only the first $9,000 of earnings. A maximum annual contribution of a whopping $468! As small as that $468 is, it is still more than 15.5 times greater than they paid in 1949!! In 1982, the contribution rate was 6.7% on the first $32,400 of earnings. A maximum annual contribution of $2,170.80. That is more than 72 times greater than they were paying in 1949!
Add it up fellows. Those who are retired have received a monster payout. It is estimated that babyboomers with maximum SS earnings will receive a whopping 1% earnings on their contributions!!! Their children? They will receive NEGATIVE earnings on their contributions. Personally, I believe there will be nothing for them. It will end up being a confiscatory tax for our children! Like it or not, it is generational theft.
You're killing me! Bwuahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Russ, NCNE
Now that there are less taxes to pay on dividends in retirement, it's already a boon for seniors.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
Here is a quiz to help you determine if you are conservative or liberal.
I ended up with a score of 27... right between George Bush and Jack Kemp!
---------------------------------
"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished!"
"If it don't make $"
"It don't make cents""
<< <i>Niether one, I think for myself! >>
WSM,
When did PCGS start letting you do that?
Russ, NCNE
The only real way to cut taxes for the poor is to cut the payroll tax. NO politician (dem or rep) is going to do that since the ever-ageing population will kick their ass out of office.
The most recent GREAT idea I saw was Bush's proposal of the "Lifetime Savings Account". This was to be the first step in getting away from the stupid idea of taxing savings, which Washington has bestoed upon us. Of course, the dimwits in Washington have ignored this so far and will probably never happen. As much as I dislike Bush and his foreign "policy" I've liked his tax policies quite a bit.
To answer the question of this thread (what a novel idea!): Conservative when it comes to finance. A bit middle to liberial on some social issues. I'm a bit Libratarian...I guess...hell, I don't really even know what that is. lol
jom
It's the one authored by Bill Clinton titled THE BOOK OF MORALS. And who wrote the foreword? The Reverend Jessie Jackson.
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
Brian.
<< <i>Why is a national health care plan viewed as "liberal"? >>
Ask the Canadians!
38 for me!
Of course, I knew which way most of the questions were leaning.
JJacks
I am happy to say I voted for Alan Keyes but would prefer someone like Walter Williams residing in the White House.
Isn't it Ironic that a anti-liberal and far right winger such as myself thinks that the two finest patriots in our nation today are both black men?
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
<< <i>govt needs to make sure money flows everyones way! >>
Yep, let's redistribute the resources of the productive!
Russ, NCNE
Great minds think alike.
Jade Rare Coin eBay Listings
<< <i>at the expense of others >>
There's that static thinking again. Please read an economics book
With those experiences under my belt, I believe that big government institutions are bad for the working class folks. Capitalism with minimal government interference and taxes is paradise compared to the socialism that I experienced. What's the use in having universal health care it that means it is universally bad? To see a very hard working professional couple live in government 700 sq. ft. apartments with two kids and a bike and pay 80% of their income in total taxes is really a sad thing to experience.
In the U.S. with 15% of the working classes' paycheck going to social security in addition to another 15% to 25% in federal income taxes; in addition to property taxes, sales taxes, and similar taxes......it's not the really rich that are being taxed to death (relative to their income and wealth...their taxes are very small compared to the working Joe's of this country. The really rich don't have much salary...they have capital gains and therefore pay little social security and income tax relative to their "Total Income."
Do I think we need to tax the very rich more? Heck no....but don't let the liberal's fool you.....it's the working middle class that pay the taxes in this country.
Are you really a Libertarian?
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
mcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu">dmcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu
Our money is worthless as it stands.
Lurking with intent to loom