"Everyone should pay some taxes because it makes them a more responsible voter. If you think you are going to pay absolutely nothing for anything the government gives you then you will always ask for the world. Why would you care what it cost and what others must pay for you to have it? Only if you have money in the game will you take the cost of these benefits seriously when you go to place your vote."
Insane. This is coming from a guy that spends 20k a year on his dog. Heaven forbid his taxes go up to support food stamps. Do you really want to tax people that make 15k a year? Do you realize that people that make minimum wage do not make enough money to pay for rent AND food.
"Couple of things....if the poor get a pass on paying taxes, then they should NOT benefit from the services that the taxes support. Since that is impossible, they MUST pay their share. Period. WHY should they get something for nothing? The world doesnt work that way (but it is the poor that think they are ENTITLED to welfare of every sort). And if you do give them a pass on paying federal taxes, social security and medicare taxes, why should they get social security or health care at 65? Next thing you know, you will be excusing them from local, state and sales tax... You cant have your cake and eat it too. Everyone, and I mean everyone WORKING should pay taxes. Deal with it."
Typical right wing misinformation tactic. The poor pay the same rate for state, SS, and medicare taxes. Don't you know you cannot collect SS/Medicare unless you have paid into the system for 10 years? Poor people get a break on federal taxes because of deductions (JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE). There is no such thing as the poor getting a pass, the lowest tax bracket is 10% 0 to 8700 dollars.
The standard deduction is 5950, so anyone making less than 6k a year will not pay any federal taxes. While the rich get away with 6 and 7 figure deduction. YOU'RE GOING TO WHINE ABOUT SOMEONE MAKING 6K A YEAR NOT PAYING FEDERAL TAX??? What's wrong with you...
It's all smoke and mirrors from b o. The money collected will barely put a dimple in the deficit and it won't go to paying off the deficit. They will spend it just like a junkie snorts coke and we will be in more debt in two years. Makes the demos look like they "care". Money goes to where it's treated best. Wake up folks! Look at western europe.
Caught you in another lie.
YOUR WORDS "I am paying for car insurance and car payments"
"Car issuance plus gas totals $200/month."
Get out of here kid! Your car insurance alone is going to be 200 a month, any male under 25 pays that much. Now you add gas and car payments???
Your mommy and daddy are paying for it. Stop lying and listen to your elders.
Fitboy, now you're lying again. $20/hour x 40 hours x 16 weeks is $12,800 BEFORE TAXES.
YOUR WORDS "I worked 16 weeks total (3.5 months), and I had some bi-weekly paychecks as high as $3,000. It was actually slightly over 18k before tax, and still over 15k after tax."
Federal taxes 15% (Any income under $8750 is 10%), so let's say 12.5%
State taxes 4.35% (Michigan)
SS and Medicare tax 7.65%
Total tax 27%
Pretax income: $12,800
After tax income: $9344
Since your math skills are so poor, I highly doubt you are an engineering student. See how simply I did that. Basic accounting math (a necessity if you own your own business)
You are as dumb as they get. No wonder you are a democrat. As I said before, I'm not a democrat slacker that works 40 hours/week and goes on food stamps like you. I worked OVER 40 hours/week which gets me overtime pay or 1.5 x hourly or $30/hour. I also got $450/month in housing allowance and $1200 in travel to drive down there. That's another 3k for doing nothing for the company.
Sorry, but my insurance is $112/month. I put it under my parents name to save money, but I pay for the insurance still. I also get deductibles just like you do, so I'm not taxed at your 27% rate.
Also, my parents are paying for my college right now, but when I start working, I will be sending them 5k checks per year. (I believe more than that can be taxed even among family)
Also, my girlfriend and I will make a combined 130-140k straight out of bachelors (if we stay together). Despite this, I can tell you that we will be living in the cheapest apartment, driving my 2003 camry for the next 10 years (if we take a car down there). Not all of us #$%$ money away and blame the government for it when things don't work out.
In reality, I spend less than $2k a year for my dog and that includes yearly visits to the vet. In my opinion, if you cannot love a pet enough to do what you can to offer them a reasonably good life, then you have no business owning a pet. Probably the biggest effort that a dog owner must make is the daily walk that each dog needs to remain fit and healthy. That is not a cost to the owner but it is an indication of their commitment to their pet. And the owner gets the benefit of getting exercise at the same time.
They say that people who own pets lead less stressful lives. I can believe this as the interaction that we have with our dog brings about many positive feelings. This is why pet owners will shell out several thousand dollars for surgery for their dog because they care about them like a child. Otherwise they would simply say to the vet to put it to sleep and go out and get another but they feel a need to return to the dog a degree of loyalty equal to what the dog has given to them and not just have them dumped in a land fill somewhere. It is similar to the feeling of loyalty that comrades in arms feel, or the feeling of loyalty that you feel for a spouse or your children. The pet becomes an integral member of the family as they should be and in most cases it is well deserved.
And the dog also cares about their owners well being. When we go on a hike our dog looks after us. She won’t let us out of her sight. When she gets too far ahead on the path she stops and waits until we catch up. As far as she is concerned, we are part of a pack that cannot be broken up. And if one of us tries to veer off she tries to herd us together so we are in a tight nit and safe group where she can see that no one will get separated. If one of us stops while others keep walking she will go to the straggler and encourage them to keep up with the pack. She stands in front of you, barks once, runs around in a tight circle to indicate that she wants you to pay attention and then runs in the direction she wants you to go and then stops to look at you to see if you got her message. And if you ignore this she will get behind you and push her nose into your leg into the direction she wants you to walk. I always say that people who think that dogs don’t reason obviously have never owned a dog. Their reasoning may be on a much lower level but they obviously make decisions, that I know is true.
When my wife and I leave to go on an errand or to go out to eat our dog goes to the bay window in the front of our house and sits on the self and she waits for us looking for our car to return. If you drive by the house you see will her waiting there. She will sit there for hours and wait until we come back. And then when we get home she is jubilant. The only time she does not do this is when we leave to work because she knows we will be gone for a long time. But when I call my wife from my cell to let her know that I’ll be home in about 15 minutes she goes straight to the bay window and waits and every time I come home I see her sitting there and when she sees my car she jumps down and gets in front of the door. The problem with developing such a strong bond with a dog is knowing that some day that they will pass and that it will be a very sad day. I have already told my wife that I plan to save her ashes. I really love that dog.
Ray, nice post.
“It’s inevitable when you buy a pet. You’re supposed to know it in the pet shop: it’s going to end badly. You’re purchasing a small tragedy.”
— George Carlin. RIP.
Learn to ignore olee. I do - usually :).
Dumbos get a charge out of watching children have children they can't support. Dumbos figure one more illiterate welfare baby will just grow up to be another dumbo voter. So it doesn't matter what's good for the country as long as the Dumbos can keep control.
Stopped reading at can't support yourself if you make 15k/year. Supporting yourself at 15k a year is as easy as it gets. I live in the most expensive city in Michigan (downtown ann arbor), and I have no problem surviving at under $200/month for food (including going out to restaurants, all I eat everyday is milk, bread, peanut butter, pasta, chicken, whey protein and salad. This is extremely healthy, and costs me an average of $4/day.) I have my own bedroom, and rent costs me $500/month including electricity/gas/water. Car issuance plus gas totals $200/month. Gym membership costs $30/month.
I personally live off of sub 15k/year (I'm a college student, so I only make money 3 months per year), and I still have enough spare money to go on cruises, fly to Asia, fly to different parts of usa, and go out drinking/eating out. My parents do not fund me for this, and no I don't have kids or a wife, but Americans are extremely wasteful people, and complain about how they are struggling to eat when they weigh 250 pounds. I can guarantee they can all their macro and micro nutrients in with $100/month.
I will be making over 60k my first year out of college in the following months, and despite moving to Chicago, I will live like I make a 30k salary. Living within your means is not a difficult concept.
I have always said that an obese poor person is an oxymoron. I don't shop at Wal-Mart normally but every once in a while I go in one when I'm out of town to get something and I look at the people shopping in there and the only word that comes to mind is “diabetes”. But the fact is that you can eat a very healthy diet for almost nothing, that is, if you eat to live and don’t live to eat. I like to eat fish that contains omega-3 so unfortunately I spend more to do that. And my wife insist on range fish instead of farmed so that bumps it up a notch as well.
I had a roommate once that used to live off of almost nothing. It amazed me how little he could live on. And he still managed to play a few rounds of golf a month at the local golf course that was associated with the community college. I never met someone who was so happy and spent so little money doing it. He drove an VW bug and did all his own mechanics. At the time we both shared the hobby of remote control glider flying. We would go to a cliff overlooking the ocean where the wind hits the cliff and then is forced upward. You can stand there for hours and never land your plane as the lift created by this updraft rarely ceases. This is because the air over the Pacific Ocean is colder than the air over ground so there is always an inward blow. If you crash your planes a lot then this could be an expensive hobby but if you are careful you never crash it. The last I saw him he was still flying the same plane as when I met him. I’m sure it had been repaired many times.
I seriously doubt that this guy has a cell phone. It would not be like him to spend money on something like that because he could get by with the land line. Yet I bet you that most people who are considered to be poor do have a cell phone.
I had to pay for cable myself because he didn’t want to. I was fine with that because if I had not gotten cable he would have done without. But I let him watch it of course. He only drank water because it was free relatively speaking. And it turns out that this is the healthiest habit anyway. At the time I drank beer and he always refused when I offered him one because he said he could not return the favor. An old friend of his died and he inherited $40k which he used to go to school to get a degree in IT (computers). Now he makes a more however I doubt he spends that much more. And the whole time I knew him he was one of the happiest guys I knew and he never mooched off of anyone. He always declined offers to go out and eat because he did not want to spend the money. He would not even eat at McDonalds as he felt it was too expensive. When I think of the people I admire in life, he is one of them. Never complained about his circumstances and never imposed on others and a great guy to get along with. If I had lived as he had I would have a lot of money in the bank.
You're living off student loans. When you work, 15k is taxed with state, SS and medicare tax.
And don't lie, you're getting money from money and daddy. I paid my own way for college and I did not travel. I studied, worked, and got my feet wet in the stock market. In fact, I did not travel until I was making a high income from my business. Silly child.
Let me know when you're in the real world kid. I have a college degree and built a successful business.
Germany and the Netherlands the best healthcare system and the U.S. should use them as models.
That said, it's not going to happen and Obamacare is the best we're going to get. I'm against welfare. It creates a permanent underclass which breeds a large percentage of criminals.
The poor should receive subsidies that make healthcare, housing, and food affordable, not free. That means rent, healthcare premiums, etc should be within the range of someone working a minimum wage job.
And yes, the rich need to pay more. That's a given. They benefited the most from our society, they have the higher obligation.
What has amazed me through all the bickering is how some of the most basic inequalities are overlooked. There is an obvious movement to "reform" SS in relation to retirement benefits. There are continued warnings about the solvency of the program going forward. Yet one of the largest breaks the wealthy get is a 6.2% break the rest of the income classes never get to realize. The wealthy don't pay a penny more in SS taxes over their first 108,000 of income. Yes, that cap keeps getting raised, but the bottom line point is being missed. Those of the wealthy that derive their income strictly from capital gains and dividends pay no SS taxes whatsoever. The bottom line is that the wealthy who control such a significant percentage of the entire country's wealth and markets are way off in paying a fair share of SS taxes in relation to the population that supports their income production.
Do the wealthy not make their earnings off the back of the classes below them in one form or another?
SS retirement benefits should not be on the cutting block, more support by the very affluent to take care of those who have contributed to their stature should be taking place. People will ask, "Why should the wealthy pay more into a program they will never need?" These are people who have no appreciation of anyone but themselves and don't care where their money comes from, they just know it's there.
Sure, there is waste and fraud in the program and those issues need to be addressed very badly. BUT, keeping a cap on SS taxes is in my opinion one of the most elitist policies in government.
Yep, this would bump my taxes considerably, but I guess I'm one of a very rare breed...
Currently SS is not self sustaining. By that I mean that SS does not take in enough to allow it to pay out all the benefits that are coming due. The reason the SS program fell into this situation was because for many years SS was taking in more money than they could spend so law breakers decided it was OK to up the benefits. That's not the case anymore. And had their never been a SS surplus in the past then law makers never would have boosted benefits to what they are today and we would not be in this mess because we would already be of the mindset that we were going to get less. So we either increase SS taxes or reduce SS benefits. I'm OK with either approach. However it they up SS tax and keep benefits the same they will never make up for the fact that the baby boomers got a free ride where they paid less into a fund than they will get out in return. That bridge has been crossed. Or we could simply give baby boomers what they paid in which I suspect is about 3/4 of what they are projected to get today. Since I am retiring soon I would opt for them keeping benefits the same however I cannot object with a clear conscious if they decide to cut my benefits as I never paid for what I'm projected to get. That extra 1/4 is a freebie as far as I’m concerned.
If they decide to cut SS benefits then I will probably work about another 3 to 4 years to make up for the money that I won’t get. I don’t want to do that. But then, how can I ethically object when I never paid for those benefits to begin with? Do I just say screw our children and grand children and force them to do for us what we were not willing to do for ourselves if they are inclined not to? Maybe some of you can do that in clear conscious but I cannot. It is too engrained into my moral fiber to not impose on others a cost for me that I did not pay for. I just can’t go there. I think our children and grand children deserve to have as much of a chance to live as a good of a life as we had and not be saddled with the burdens of our mistakes if they don’t want to be. Personally, I would be fine if they keep SS the same but I wish they could make it a special election where only the younger people who will be paying for us would be allowed to vote on it as they will be the ones getting screwed in the end. If they decide then so be it. If not then I’m fine with that. I won’t like it but at least I can feel good that I didn’t give anyone the shaft no matter how it goes. But alas that is not how things are done and I’m sure the decision will be made mostly by selfish self centered greedy people as it always has been before.
In a way I’m glad I was born in my generation because I would hate to have what is getting done to the next generation by our generation. They are getting screwed big time by us. And it’s not because the rich are not paying their fair share. The SS system is not part of the general fund and it is paid for by each worker. The rich have nothing to do with this situation.
Probably the fairest thing to do that will force baby boomers to get the same as everyone else is going to get is to increase the age at which you can start getting benefits. Then no one gets screwed and no one gets over on anyone. Problem solved. But if our kids want to give us a feebie I’ll take it, so long as they are willing. But I doubt that is how it will play out. They won’t have a choice because older people will ram it down their throats because they will only think of themselves. But of course they will use catch phrases that sound anything like that in an attempt to get allies to their cause.
After watching the election Nov 6, it should be very clear that that we have a divided nation over these very issues and I do not see it getting any better in the near future. Although I am a strong Republican, I believe in raising the taxes for the rich, but like some of the posts, I believe that the the poor should contribute something-maybe 2% or whatever. If we want to be a whole nation, we should all have skin in the game. If you believe in redistribution of the wealth, and a divided nation wait, you will have your chance to contribute to this endeavor sooner than you think.
The AGNC message board has always been one of my favorites due to some very intelligent people posting excellent recipes for improving your wealth. However, as with some of the other boards, politics has become a greater concern on this board as well.LOL
Well said Eagle. I agree with almost everything you posted and have proposed similar legislation for years...obviously to no avail...;-) I would add to your excellent post that SS benefits on the other end(distribution), should be means tested.
Why should my brother(I used this example before), who makes 100k/month in retirement(really), receive SS benefits? My conservative friends(I consider myself a recovering conservative) say I am wrong and that since he paid into the system, those benefits are rightfully his. That is true in the strictest sense of "rightfully".
They fail to appreciate that the purpose of SS was to support those who did not have sufficient "means" to support themselves at retirement. I look at the "Insurance" side of SS as just that..term life insurance.
Well, congrats to my brother. He didn't die and the "term" expired at retirement on the insurance policy and the "term" expired also on his SS contributions(premiums), because he does not need the "safety" net that his premiums paid toward.
I like this concept. It is easier, IMO, for my stricter conservative friends to swallow, rather than to say he "owes" his benefits to those less fortunate. Why does that idea carry such a bitter taste? Oh, well...So I pkg my discussions with my friends in light of this "insurance" analogy, as everyone(well...) understands the whole term life insurance idea.
Just saying...life is compromise...would you keep taking your car back for the same problem to get fixed , to the same mechanic, if it never got fixed? Let's fix what is broke(SS) and give and take. If not, can we start over with a new mechanic (Congress..both sides)?