[/QUOTE]
Just one of the many reasons I refer to them (us.gov) as the largest legal criminal organization in the world. [/QUOTE]

One of us here has a tag line that says it better. Cannot remember who it is though.

^^^^ chellim1. Different wording but says the same thing. Such has been my feeling for years.

quote:

Originally posted by patw:
What really cheeses me is how some in our government, give SS to those from other countries who never paid into it and give the money away to them no questions asked. If anything, if you haven't paid into the system during your life and if some people are still going to get it, then they should be the ones to pay taxes on it in the least.

have any citations for that? You can't claim social security unless you paid into it for 40 quarters (ten years). I know expats who move to other countries because they can't afford to live here on just their social security but they can live like a prince in some other country.

SSI isn't Social Security; it's welfare. But you can't collect SSI if you're out of the country.

Could be worse. You could live in a state that taxes SS income too

I am very curious to see exactly how this is going to shake out. The devil will be in the details. We haven’t seen a bill yet.
Will SS income be factored into combined household income if one spouse is still working? If so, it isn’t “tax free”. What impact will lowering household income have on income eligibility requirements for things like credit scores? It doesn’t seem to me that when congress is done with the concept, the execution will be unconditional. I don’t know. We will find out.

quote:

Originally posted by Oscars father:
Will SS income be factored into combined household income if one spouse is still working?

If so, why not just file "Married filing separately"?

Married filing separately is a higher tax bracket. Operationally if the spouse pays more taxes on their income, the tax liability has merely been shifted.

As I said before, I really want to see what the final package will look like. The idea that tips and overtime will be non taxable raises some questions too. Will there be unintended impact.
When I first started in my LE career, it took three years to make base salary. Being a young man with kids and a new mortgage, I worked 5 to 6 hundred hours a year in overtime.
That gross income was used to compute my pension contributions. Although the percentage would’ve been the same, the dollar amount clearly would be lower. The same mechanism would apply to people not counting their tips. It might be selling one’s self short in the long run.
The Federal income tax form information is used as the basis for local returns. Excluding tips and overtime will lower local revenue. I don’t mind paying for Fire, Police (obviously), EMS, clear, well paved roads.
I have no idea if these are details that will be factored in when the bill is done.

quote:

Originally posted by Oscars father:
As I said before, I really want to see what the final package will look like. The idea that tips and overtime will be non taxable raises some questions too. Will there be unintended impact.

There are always unintended consequences.

I can think of a few ways people will restructure pay under such laws which may not be to the employee's advantage. There will be a shift towards using tips or overtime, with a lowering of base wages. Employers will benefit. Employees may have to work more hours for the same take home pay. Additionally, contract 1099 workers will not benefit. There will be pressures of some sort from that new imbalance.

It may make it harder to get a mortgage or other loan.

Down the road, the employee has lower wages on paper. This hurts their Social Security.

The taxes on SS went directly back into the fund.
Excluding other forms of compensation will also be non contributory.
As someone posted earlier, it is a ponzi. The boomers out number the following generations. Just a fact. I’ve read some (I thought intelligent) solutions.
Many questions. I just hope the legislature uses a deliberative approach to make things work.

My understanding is that the original Social Security legislation was based on the actuarial tables that existed in the early 1930s. Suffice it to say, life spans changed significantly over the coming decades, so death in one's 50s and earlier was no longer so common. I assume that this reality has been known in Washington for some time.

At the time, when they set 65 as the "retirement" age, the age at which they calculated length of life, it was less than 65 for the average person. In other words, they calculated the majority of people would die before they reached 65 and no money would be collected by the retiree and no money would be paid out. They did not realize we would live so much longer back then.

The idea of being taxed on SS income is beyond ridiculous! To be taxed on a tax you paid? I don’t care if someone also has another source of income because that income is also being taxed. SS should be tax free and people should not be punished on their SS if they have all their credits and also receive a pension. I do hope this all gets fixed.

I started my career in the private sector and am vested to receive SS. Now I work in the public sector. I am still 10.5 years from retirement with a pension and SS. Hell, I am being killed right now just on property taxes. I have raw land that I don’t know if I can keep any longer due to how much I pay in property taxes on it in addition to my home. The land is near the Austin Tesla plant, toll road, and airport. Once those things were in place my taxes went through the roof and I only even go see the land in that county maybe twice a year. I am paying a bunch of money just to have the “right” to own land I paid for. Sorry to get off track on property taxes…

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am so sick of soak the rich. I am not wealthy but in a high tax bracket. We already pay the bulk of income taxes. Besides people who made 10 million pay tax attorneys to minimize what they pay.

Millionaire Tax-Hike Talks Gain Steam As Trump Signals Openness

Republicans in the White House, Senate and House are drafting analyses on how best to craft a new tax bracket for the wealthiest Americans, work that signals the GOP under President Donald Trump is seriously considering ideas to raise taxes on the rich.

The House proposal would set the new rate at 40% for taxpayers earning $1 million or more a year, according to people familiar with the proposal. Economic policy aides in the Senate and the Trump administration have been studying the idea as well, according to people briefed on the work.


A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations, said Trump is open to the idea of a new top tax bracket. However, the person emphasized that the higher rate should kick in at a threshold far greater than $1 million.

“We are investigating and having discussions with Congress about a variety of potential offsets,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender said Tuesday at an event in Washington, noting that there are “many, many ideas” being studied to minimize the total cost of the tax bill though no decisions have been made.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview Monday with Bloomberg News that “everything is on the table” with regards to the tax bill.

A Senate Finance Committee spokesperson declined to comment. Representatives for the White House and the House Ways and Means Committee did not immediately provide comment.

The discussions about a new tax bracket for millionaires come as Republicans are looking for ways to pay for a sweeping tax bill by the end of 2025 when several of Trump’s first-term cuts expire. The current top tax rate is 37% for individuals earning more than $626,350 a year.

The higher rates on top earners could be a way to offset the cost of an expanded state and local tax deduction, a popular and politically important tax break for swing district Republicans in New York, New Jersey and California, one person said.

The SALT deduction benefits skew toward higher-earners, so offsetting the cost with a millionaires bracket would serve a way to minimize the tax savings flowing to wealthy Americans in the bill. Republicans are considering expanding the SALT cap from $10,000 to as high as $25,000 per person.

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/mi...02ce404ce3-245236327

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Social Security was "sold" to the American public as a Federally sponsored retirement account. Immediately following its passage, it was reclassified as a tax and not a retirement account.

Just one of the many reasons I refer to them (us.gov) as the largest legal criminal organization in the world.

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
- George Bernard Shaw

How Much Does Each US Wealth Bracket Pay In Income Taxes?

The top 1% of U.S. earners paid 40% of federal income taxes in 2022, based on the latest available data.

This share has risen from 33.2% in 2001.

Meanwhile, the share paid by the bottom 50% of earners fell from 4.9% to 3% over the same period—likely reflecting the growing concentration of wealth at the top, which has boosted tax contributions from high-income individuals.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows federal income tax revenue by wealth bracket, based on analysis of IRS data from the Tax Foundation.

https://www.visualcapitalist.c...pay-in-income-taxes/

Breaking Down America’s Income Tax Revenue

Below, we show the share of total federal income taxes paid by wealth tier in 2022:



Americans earning over $663,000, considered the top 1%, paid $854.5 billion in income taxes, the highest share overall.

The average income tax rate for this tier was 26.1%, across more than 1.5 million income tax returns in 2022. Individuals in this bracket paid $561,523, on average, in their income tax filings.

For those falling in the top 5% to 1% of all U.S. earners, income tax revenue amounted to $448.6 billion, the second-highest share. Taxpayers falling into this bracket earned between $261,591 and $663,164 and paid 23.1% on average in income tax.

Meanwhile, the bottom half of earners funded the smallest share of total income tax revenue, with an average income tax rate of 3.7%. These represent earners of $50,339 or less, spanning across 76.9 million American taxpayers.

https://www.zerohedge.com/pers...ket-pay-income-taxes