Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
I have been working and paying taxes since the late 1960’s. Now, I applied for SS at full retirement age, as did my wife. Now, thanks to the Democrats, we are paying taxes on our taxes! We both worked all of our adult lives… saved and invested in America by way of the stock market, and have a comfortable nest egg… at least until my wife required around the clock care due to a catastrophic stroke. Even so, I believed we could live out our lives without significant worry. No longer - when a politician tells you something, believe them! The threat to our savings in taxing unearned capital gains is almost a death threat! And it is to anyone with savings, investments, home ownership or any other accrued asset! The Democrats look at every dollar in the private sector as a resource for them to take and spend. Right now, every man woman and child (not counting illegal immigrates, owes over $100,000 each for the National Debt! I am donating to Republican causes and candidates as much as I can afford, hoping for the better. Rant off… No quarter .308/.223 | ||
|
| I Am The Walrus |
It's stealing. The dems have mastered stealing from the working to give to those who vote for a living. _____________ | |||
|
| Member |
Agreed… and the Dems take their cut! I have watched the Israelis with great admiration! They have adopted PABA (Politica Action by Assassination) with great success. I have difficulty thinking that the Dems have been using PABA against Trump, a bad conspiracy theory I think; but some group is certainly making the effort, however feeble it has been. The Members of this Forum are believers in the Constitution of our beloved country and understand what we said in our military service - “This we will Defend”! No quarter .308/.223 | |||
|
| No More Mr. Nice Guy |
The SS and Medicare systems hav3 been incrementally altered to penalize productive workers. The more you earn in your paycheck, the lower your return rate. The more you save intelligently in retirement accounts the more they soak out of you when you withdraw it, e.g. IRMAA. The more you invest and get returns in retirement, the more of your SS they claw back in taxes. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
Yes, and that covers most of the problems we have in the USA. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| No, not like Bill Clinton  |
I'm not expecting SS when I retire, it's unsustainable. All the money I paid in will be gone If those fuckers come after my retirement accounts it won't end well for them  | |||
|
More light than heat |
Unrealized capital gains are not currently taxed. The current proposal is directed at people with over $100 million in assets. Do you have over $100 million in unrealized assets? _________________________ "Age does not bring wisdom. Often it merely changes simple stupidity into arrogant conceit. It's only advantage, so far as I have been able to see, is that it spans change. A young person sees the world as a still picture, immutable. An old person has had his nose rubbed in changes and more changes and still more changes so many times that that he knows it is a moving picture, forever changing. He may not like it--probably doesn't; I don't--but he knows it's so, and knowing is the first step in coping with it." Robert Heinlein | |||
|
| Shit don't mean shit |
Yes, the current PROPOSAL. At some point it will be adjusted. And I can say with confidence that the unrealized limit will never be adjusted up, only down. Below is an article on income tax rates when they were first introduced. https://www.investopedia.com/a...10/history-taxes.asp The federal income tax as we know it was officially enacted in 1913. Corporate income taxes were enacted in 1909. Tax rates tend to change, often rising. The marginal tax rate was 1% on income of $0 to $20,000, 2% on income of $20,000 to $50,000, 3% on income of $50,000 to $75,000, 4% on income of $75,000 to $100,000, 5% on income of $100,000 to $250,000, 6% on income of $250,000 to $500,000, and 7% on income of $500,000 and up when the federal income tax was implemented to help finance World War I in 1913. | |||
|
is circumspective |
I posted this on a similar discussion elsewhere. I stand by it, though it's not directed specifically toward any one here. To the folks citing the 100 million net worth figure as an acceptable threshold, let me ask you two things: When was the last time in the history of the US Federal government that any tax levied was the only version of said tax? The answer is never in more than the last hundred years. The lack of revenue generated by this tax won't be a drop in a bucket to even cover paying the interest on the debt. For that reason alone it's a no-go. Don't be fooled into an us-versus-them view of the people who this tax will hit first. The truth is that the threshold will ratchet its way down to lower and lower numbers until more and more people are defined as "the rich" and that lower limit will eventually come knocking at your door. Mark my words. The only answer to any of this is to reduce spending on the frivolous type of nonsense that the government loves to throw money at. Secondly, what do you think the effect on the economy we all take part in would be as a result of this? I can think of a couple of things off the top of my head and they're not isolated to the top wealth holders. First, the people we're talking about here are typically powerful economic forces who may be less inclined to invest in opportunities that generate jobs for the working class. Secondly, their investment in many entities are the monies that drive an economic engine for all our needs. These two things alone (among others) could cause a slow-down in an economy already unable to keep (taxed-based) pace with current spending. If you all think stealing more of ANYONE'S money by the government is the right approach , You're welcome to pony-up your own assets. I'll wait... "We're all travelers in this world. From the sweet grass to the packing house. Birth 'til death. We travel between the eternities." | |||
|
| Page late and a dollar short |
I think it’s ironic that even though someone is retired and collecting SS and Medicare benefits if they work their income is still taxed for both. So in effect your money is used to pay yourself in a way. -------------------------------------—————— ————————--Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even, usually, surpassing knowledge(E.J.Potter, A.K.A. The Michigan Madman) | |||
|
| More light than heat |
If you think we're going to cut our way out of this deficit I have some bad news for you. Unless of course you are amenable to cutting the Pentagon's budget to about a third of what it is. Getting out is going to mean both spending cuts and raising taxes somewhere down the line. You could cut both SS and/or Medicare (particularly Medicare), but I doubt OP or anybody in that voting demographic would be very happy about that. I get the hesitancy about a new tax. Giving the government a new way of taxing is like giving a heroin addict more heroin. For my part I don't see it so much as an effort to raise revenue so much as an effort to make that amount of capital more mobile. The top 1% hold $43 trillion in assets, while unemployment is currently at 4.3%. I don't see that rate going much lower no matter how much capital you allow to accrue. It's an incredibly inefficient way to run your economy. The proposal has a number of problems, anyway. The most obvious being that the holders of said unrealized capital will simply sell it to parties outside the U.S. It's mostly an attractive sound bite made in an election year. But I do think OP need not worry about the government coming for his retirement assets, in any event. _________________________ "Age does not bring wisdom. Often it merely changes simple stupidity into arrogant conceit. It's only advantage, so far as I have been able to see, is that it spans change. A young person sees the world as a still picture, immutable. An old person has had his nose rubbed in changes and more changes and still more changes so many times that that he knows it is a moving picture, forever changing. He may not like it--probably doesn't; I don't--but he knows it's so, and knowing is the first step in coping with it." Robert Heinlein | |||
|
His Royal Hiney |
Vote for Trump. No tax on Social Security. The Dems do like to point out that it was Ronald Reagan who signed the bill taxing Social Security. I do think Social Security benefits should be means tested and I'm talking about people where the Social Security is a mere pittance of their net worth or income streams. Pelosi doesn't need her SS, etc. Or raise the thresholds for taxing Social Security benefits at least. Those haven't changed since their introduction. "It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
That's always the trick, isn't it? Agree to tax increases in exchange for spending cuts? But the spending cuts never happen and government keeps expanding and growing. If I had the power... I could balance the budget. Not over 10 years. Right now. I'd eliminate entire departments and programs. I'd shut down most of the 3 letter agencies and drastically reduce the rest. Yes, I'd cut the military too. But the government would shrink by about a third and the country would recover. We don’t have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government. There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another. Government has no resources of its own…government spending is no less than the confiscation of one person’s property to give it to another to whom it does not belong. --Walter E. Williams "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| SIGforum Official Eye Doc  |
Does that matter? It's still not right. | |||
|
| His diet consists of black coffee, and sarcasm.  |
Oh, well, that's different. That makes it OK.  Who the fuck cares whether it's $100 million or $100? It's wrong to tax money that hasn't been made yet. And if enacted, when this isn't found to be a piss in the ocean, it will eventually make its way down to $100. | |||
|
| I Am The Walrus |
Yep. That's like sending people to jail who haven't committed a crime yet. It's also like the assault weapons ban when certain groups didn't care because they were "hunters" and didn't "need" standard capacity magazines or don't see an AR as a hunting rifle so ban them. _____________ | |||
|
| Member |
Went to the local Social Security office down the road from the house. Figured I’d go ahead and sign up since I’m retiring in March. Get a number and wait around twenty minutes. Nice lady waited on me. “ Can I help you? Yes, I’m here to sign up for my Social Security. Her: You can’t do that here. Me: I’m at the Social Security office and I can’t sign up? Her: That is correct. You can sign up online or by phone but you can’t do it here. Me: I don’t have to have my Social Security card or I.D.? Her: No. Me : Why can’t I sign up here? Her: Since Covid we have so many people working from home we aren’t staffed to sign people up. Me: Covid was in 2019. Thanks. ( Lots of young people waiting, some not speaking English). Social Security has 60,000 employees. I guess most work from home. Covid was five years ago. I don’t know whether to laugh or be pissed off. Rant over. | |||
|
| Member |
You're not going to let that go are you ? I couldn't even tell you where the Social Security office is located in my town and that's fine by me . I don't want to deal with those people in person if I don't have to .So far it's worked out . | |||
|
| Member |
I wish! My concern has been expressed above. The real money will come from the massive number of “normal” people that have savings and own homes. Once the camel has its nose in the tent, you awake to find the entire camel in your tent! No quarter .308/.223 | |||
|
| No More Mr. Nice Guy |
What makes you believe that? They've floated the idea in DC more than once in recent years. Take retirement accounts, "deposit" each into a government "protected" account. You know, to protect people from being victimized by the stock market. Making this an extension of Social Security. Failing governments have a well established toolkit to delay collapse, including inflating away the debt and confiscating wealth. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024