In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1586
Online now 1595 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
If so, they show no sign of it.
Look the argument made by many on this board is that we are paying a much lower tax rate than we did in the 1950s - 1990s. I understand that there is a difference betwen state and local taxes. That being said both affect my net income and the non federal portions have gone up a great deal over the last 50 years or so.. The true tax rate is over 50% when you take into account all of the taxes we pay. You like to shove the deficit in a corner and ignore it. Our credit rating has dropped under Obama's watch and will drop again which will affect our borrowing costs. Is it your contention we can keep printing money into infinity? All you have to do is look at Greece, Spain and Italy to see that deficits are important. . I have said that the problem is bipartisan. I don't know why you think 2 wrongs make a right. What is your point on Social Security being solvent until 2038? Social Security disability is in even worse shape - 2018- 2021. So it covers the baby boomers - so what? The generations that are contributing now are going to get screwed. What is so great about that?
Declaring one form of income taxable and another not taxable is grossly unfair and ridiculous. The SS tax needs to be applied to all income equally and the cap removed entirely. That will insure that SS is fully funded into perpetuity.
What do you define as wealthy?
Frankly, if you want to boost revenue, you're going to have to COMPLETELY roll back the Bush tax cuts because they provided tax relief to everyone. If you just reinstate higher taxes to the "wealthy" whatever that defintion is, you're not going to have enough to even come close to covering the spending.
SS is not a tax. It is an involuntary retirement contribution. You get back based on what you put in. Attempting to eliminate the income limit while limiting the benefit is simply government confiscation and redistribution of wealth. Also known as socialism. At least be honest enough for once to admit what you want....idiot.
This post was edited by Bullwrinkle 17 months ago
Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of stupidity. - Frank Leahy.-- If you're going to be stupid, be smart about it. - Mike Milbury
When I said a tax on wealth I wasn't talking about income...haven't given much thought to how to define what wealth would qualify for taxation so that will take some research...
In general I define as wealthy those who don't receive a majority of their yearly income from wages.
I have no issue with eliminating the Bush tax cuts which were dumb when they were enacted...also the tax cuts on investment income that Clinton passed. However timing is everything on that...but given the slow recovery that is now building steam I think the best thing to do politically is just let the fiscial cliff and tax increases occur as per current law.
Lurking on tRCMB since 1996
The government is probably going to advocate a means test for benefits instead of raising the income limit. They will accomplish the same result but screw over fewer voters. It will punish people who do the right thing by saving outside of the social security system.
In 1965 the average US life expectancy was 70.2 years Men lived 66.8 years Women lived 73.8 years
Medicare was based on this data and it hasn't changed.
But in 2012 the average is 78.7 women are living to 81.7 years. Men living 75.8 to years.
By my semi-literate math skills that means men are around 9 years longer, women almost 7 years longer and if you believe the data that is only going to rise. Hence the need to change SS and Medicare eligibility.
Back when Medicare started everyone paid into the fund but men who werr historically the bigger wage earner weren't even collecting Medicare benefits for 24 months when the program started if they retired at 65. A decade in ('75) men were collecting close to 4 years. But by '85 men were living almost 5 years longer and women showed similar gains in longevity.
link won't work so here's the address http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195
This is certainly an interesting perspective. You aren't advocating for taxes on income from wages but those who have reached a certain level of wealth. Are you advocating that the government appropriate the wealth outright or are you saying that their income from wealth be taxed? If I were wealthy, by your standards, I would put all of my assets in tax free muni bonds. Would you outlaw munibonds? Also, stengthening unions I would guess you mean pushing up wages. How are you going to stop the exodus of companies to low wage countries? Or layoffs resulting from cheaper non union companies. Are you going to outlaw that too? It sounds like you are advocating for an isolationist socialist dictatorship.
I love how in your world taxing someone into perpetuity, but limiting their benefits and giving those benefits to somebody else is "fair".
Sorry but I was alive 50 years ago and the taxes are about the same now as then for state and local taxes.
Also as you are self employed I wonder if you are being honest regarding cash flow verses income. Money flowing through your business that is taxed is not the same as your income.
As for the credit rating of the United States your daffy if you don't understand that that action was political and not reality...since there was no increase in borrowing costs or slacking of demand for US Bonds it was seen by the markets that way. Also you seem to blame President Obama for it when it was the Tea Party in Congress that created the issue and whom the credit agency blamed.
Cool, so my company's CEO who makes a 2.2M/yr salary won't get a tax increase, but I who make 55% of my wages on rental income which equates to less than 100k in income will get one. Awesome
If Obama rolled back the Bush tax cuts, he would have lost the election on a landslide which is why he has never even suggested it. It's always just the "wealthy".
You were paying taxes 50 years ago?
If I have questions about history, I'd rather ask GRR. He's been alive since the war of 1812.
There are people who make far less than 100K. Now give us your money scumbag.
Do you understand that life expectancy is based upon year of birth?
If you look at people at age 65 from 1930 til today their life expectnacy has increased about 3 years...if you look at people born in 1865 and people born in 1947 their life expectancy would be sigificantly different due to the fact that before the polio and othe vaciens there were many more childhood deaths which bend the life expectancy numbers.
If you really want to discuss this you need to get better numbers as the ones you are using are a lie in terms of how long people who reach 65 are alive.
Golly the link doesn't say that.
Maybe some tables do. This appears to be based soley on average life expectancy regardless of birth year.
Also, the United States is a center right country. If there are more conservatives on this board, it should not be a surprise.
I have some tables and links on my computer at home and will post them in this thread later after work.
While life expectancy has gone up for 65 year old people it hasn't been all that much...a good question is perhaps life expectancy during working years which has increased more than that for retirement aged people(after all people of all ages die every day)...almost need to be an actuary to make sense of this in detail.
Start your own thread about sheep molesting....
So here is a link and some numbers...
For White Males at age 60 how many more years:
1850 - 15.6
1900 - 14.25
1950 - 15.76
1970 - 16.07
1990 - 18.7
2000 - 20.0
At age 70 from 1850 to 2000 an increase of 2.8 years
At age 80 from 1850 to 2000 an increase of 1.7 years
Of course this was in 2005...so the actual numbers for 60 year old people would not be based on data but on projections for 2000 & 1990...let me suggest that the projections might be optomistic...and that a maintance of the numbers closer to 16 years would be more realistic...
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by TrapperGus 17 months ago
Fellas, you're all overthinking this. It's simple.
Thank you, Denicos.
What does being white have to do with it?
According the the Leaders of the Republician Party those are the only people who support them...
I think it is because we are "the chosen"...
Good to see you have a sense of irony...or idiocy...not sure which...
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports