Re: Well, you have a couple choices -- The Rosewater Foundation, Rosewater, Indiana

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:38:53 09/19/11 Mon
Author: Greg
Subject: Re: Well, you have a couple choices
In reply to: MaryAnne 's message, "Re: Well, you have a couple choices" on 08:29:29 09/17/11 Sat

So far my head is still above water, so I don't have as much to complain about as some others.

>
>You are right once again,Greg.The payroll tax on the
>amount you earn was raised often.It was like a COL
>thing.
>
>Yes,it was not meant to be your entire retirement
>income.
>Smart people invest in 401K's,or the amount you can
>invest without paying taxes has increased since I
>retired.
>
>People have to live within their income because all of
>us run into tough times that are out of our control.
>None of us are immune,Layoffs,restructuring can hit
>all.
>
>I hope both you and Jeff came through this time in
>good shape.
>
>
>
>
>>I don't have huge problem with raising the income
>>level that is required to pay into Social Security,
>>though I have some opposition to having people who may
>>not be allowed to draw SS if they make or have to much
>>money from having to pay into a the system.
>>
>>People also need to be reminded that SS was never
>>intended to be the sole means of support for seniors.
>>It was intended to be a supplement to thier own
>>savings and investments.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Good points,Greg. I do not think after you reach a
>>>certain point,etc.
>>>
>>>How ever,I do think you should carry your share of
>the
>>>load. We spent many years with SS tax amount being
>>>raised every so often. That needs to be done again.
>>>One thing I did not know until my AARP book came,that
>>>when taxes were increased on those who made a certain
>>>amount the money collected from that tax is put into
>>>the SS fund.SS also is drawing interest on money they
>>>have,which if you look at it in the light of day is
>>>funny,because there is no money in the SS fund. It
>was
>>>borrowed,( stolen)?
>>>Good to see you posting Greg. How are things with you
>>>and Jeff? Well,I hope.
>>>
>>>If Slate goes down what would all of you think about
>>>asking some of the better posters here ?With the
>>>understanding they follow the rules.Not sure Slate
>>>will go down,but the rumors persist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I agree that a simplified tax code would be a great
>>>>start in solving, or at least providing some
>>>>alleviation to the problem.
>>>>
>>>>However, when we start saying, "Once you get past a
>>>>certain point, you don't deserve to keep the money
>>you
>>>>made, since others are not as fortunate", I have to
>>>>dig in my heels and say "Why?"
>>>>
>>>>Tell you what...would you miss a couple of hundred
>>>>dollars a year? No? Then why don't we take that at
>>>>the point of a gun (provided by Uncle Sam), and give
>>>>that to someone else, since you don't need it.
>>>>
>>>>In fact, instead of buying a new\newer car, why
>don't
>>>>you buy an even cheaper car, since that money spent
>>>>could be used to help someone else who is hurting?
>>>>
>>>>Get where I'm coming from?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A simplified tax code would be a start,doing away
>>>with
>>>>>most subsidies that have been shown as only cash
>>cows
>>>>>to certain lobbyists.
>>>>>How in the world do we justify millions to Oil
>>>>>companies,tax breaks to Billionaires while cutting
>>>the
>>>>>SS tax?
>>>>>That is one thing about Obama I disagree with.What
>>is
>>>>>the point of that one? Most people know we are in a
>>>>>world of hurt now and we need to pull our load.How
>>>>>many in the upper brackets would miss a little more
>>>SS
>>>>>tax?
>>>>>
>>>>>Hope you find your way home soon,Paul. Things are
>>>>>slowly looking up here. My Son has been working 7
>>>days
>>>>>a week as an engineer for an Auto Parts
>company.They
>>>>>hired 55 last week.35 have quit. They planned on
>>>>>hiring 50 more.Big front page article about how
>many
>>>>>are needed in Manufacturing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey Greg, glad to hear from you. I'm still in
>>Iraq,
>>>>>>getting a little tired of the place, I'll admit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>USACE had predicted the effects of a cat 5
>>hurricane
>>>>>>back in 2002, there was a decision to ignore that
>>>>came
>>>>>>from the top. By 2005, the budget for USACE was
>>cut
>>>>>>by 50% from what they'd requested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The usual statement about flood control measures
>>>>>>promoting hurricane flooding refers to subsidence
>>in
>>>>>>the delta, well true enough, the whole delta is
>>>loose
>>>>>>topsoil hundreds of feet thick, not fit to hold
>>>>itself
>>>>>>up. However, the "cure" for this is to let the
>>city
>>>>>>flood and deposit a foot of silt on the delta
>every
>>>>>>year to build the top up as the bottom collapses
>>>>>>slowly from its own weight. This would make the
>>>city
>>>>>>unhabitable, so it's not a popular idea down
>there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, subsidies, yes, I think a whole lot of them
>>>>>>should be done away with. But most subsidies now
>>go
>>>>>>to giant business, and the benefactors of those
>>>>>>campaign contributions fight like tigers to
>prevent
>>>>>>the removal of any subsidy or tax break. With oil
>>>at
>>>>>>100$ a bbl, gas at record highs, and most who
>spoke
>>>>>>being against further continuation of the ethanol
>>>>>>subsidy, the House still voted to retain it.
>While
>>>>we
>>>>>>are at it, we need a new definition of "small"
>>>>>>business besides the current one of
>>>>"unincorporated".
>>>>>>The Koch Brothers are not incorporated, take in
>>>>>>billions per year, but are "small business" under
>>>the
>>>>>>federal law and are so discussed in Washington.
>>>Yes,
>>>>>>really. Next time you hear of a "small business
>>>>>>subsidy" being attacked, check to make sure it's
>>not
>>>>>>going to billion dollar small business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So many corporations pay no US tax at all, that it
>>>>has
>>>>>>become surreal. The number of corporations with
>>>>>>negative tax is also unreal. Add in the
>>>corporations
>>>>>>that pay a tax rate of less than 10% (and that
>>>double
>>>>>>tax thing people keep bringing up - HA! - I pay my
>>>>>>taxes so the landscaper I paid to fix my yard
>>>doesn't
>>>>>>have to because the money I paid him with is
>>already
>>>>>>taxed? What's the difference? It's taxed because
>>>my
>>>>>>payment is his income, and that's the same for him
>>>>>>getting paid by me or Warren Buffet getting a
>>>>>>dividend, their payment is his income.) and the
>>>total
>>>>>>gets way up there, especially in terms of the
>>really
>>>>>>big fortune 500 monsters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>href="http://theweek.com/article/index/218534/the-
>c
>>o
>>>n
>>>>t
>>>>>r
>>>>>>oversy-over-taxing-corporations">http://theweek.co
>m
>>/
>>>a
>>>>r
>>>>>t
>>>>>>icle/index/218534/the-controversy-over-taxing-corp
>o
>>r
>>>a
>>>>t
>>>>>i
>>>>>>ons
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The Federal govt could quit supporting the
>states
>>>>>>>>altogether, cut the military by half, cut
>>>>disability
>>>>>>>>and medicaid and stop the SSA COLA increases.
>>>>>They'd
>>>>>>>>also have to drop the USACE support of the
>>>>>>Mississippi
>>>>>>>>and let the states worry about it, stop most dam
>>>>and
>>>>>>>>flood controls too. Drop all disaster relief.
>>>And
>>>>>>>>quit giving money to agriculture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>OFC, if they do all that, the economy will
>crash,
>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>the budget will be balanced without raising
>>>taxes.
>>>>>>>>Plus, there'll be a lot of floods and shipping
>>>will
>>>>>>go
>>>>>>>>to hell in a haycart, but it seems to be what
>the
>>>>>Tea
>>>>>>>>Party wants to see happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>OTOH, they could raise taxes to the level of GDP
>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>they are running as outlay. Given three wars
>(or
>>>2
>>>>>>>>and a half) it's actually quite low, only 23%
>for
>>>>>>>>Federal spending. They are taking in about 15%
>>of
>>>>>>GDP
>>>>>>>>in taxes and fees and etc., so that's quite a
>>>gap.
>>>>>>>>Trouble is, 30 odd years of Republicans saying
>>>over
>>>>>>>>and over "if you reduce taxes, you increase govt
>>>>>>>>income" seems to have a large number of people
>>>>>>>>convinced that this is true, even though history
>>>>>>shows
>>>>>>>>it's not and that tax cuts generally do not
>>>>>stimulate
>>>>>>>>the economy in any real sense - at least not at
>>>the
>>>>>>>>levels of taxation present in the US since the
>>>>80's.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We need a dose of realism in govt, and we ain't
>>>>>>>>getting it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Curious to see where we land. I think over the
>>>>last
>>>>>>>>>few years we have been given plenty of warning
>>to
>>>>>>>>>change course and fix things but those in
>charge
>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>>ignoring the things that they are doing that
>>>>>>>>>exacerbates the other things that are going on
>>>>that
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>causing the economy to go belly up
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Some of the sarcasm concerning spending cuts is
>>>>>>>justified, but denying that the government is
>>>>>spending
>>>>>>>more than it's taking in, and continuing to ask
>>the
>>>>>>>people to pay for it with first making a real
>>>effort
>>>>>>>to reign in that spending is ludicrous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It may come about that taxes will have to be
>>>>>>>increased. At the very least there should be a
>>>>>>>serious look at subsidies, various loopholes in
>>the
>>>>>>>tax structure, and certainly in entitlements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BTW, a lot of the "flood control" measures in the
>>>>>>>Mississippi Delta region contributed to the
>>massive
>>>>>>>flooding of New Orleans during Katrina.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Well, you have a couple choices -- Jeffman, 05:04:22 10/02/11 Sun
- Re: Well, you have a couple choices -- MaryAnne, 13:22:45 10/02/11 Sun