|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 18, 2011 11:15:13 GMT -8
I know we have talked about this before. I say we need to remove the earnings cap, increase retirement age to reflect current longevity, and change the COLA calculation.
I brought this up in conversation with my highest net worth client when he picked up his tax return last week. My client and his wife had a good year in 2010. Their combined earned incomes were over 6 million dollars. Guess what? This multimillionaire did not scream bloody murder, and say he would leave the country, or quit working, or any of the things that conservatives say will happen if taxes on the rich are raised . He said that would probably go a long way to fix the problem.
How can this be, conservatives? A rich man, by any definition, not complaining about paying higher taxes? How is this possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 18, 2011 11:22:01 GMT -8
People like that do not get that rich sharing their real thoughts with the hired help.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 18, 2011 12:00:38 GMT -8
People like that do not get that rich sharing their real thoughts with the hired help. As if you would know. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 18, 2011 19:44:39 GMT -8
Here's how you fix social security...
Replace it with a minimum national income for those over 65. You could increase the amount received by those living on social security and little else, gradually phase it out to those above that until you reach a point where you do not pay it at all -- while cutting our unfunded federal liabilities by tens of trillions of dollars. Means test everything.
You're welcome.
Yoda out...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 19, 2011 11:55:01 GMT -8
Here's how you fix social security... Replace it with a minimum national income for those over 65. You could increase the amount received by those living on social security and little else, gradually phase it out to those above that until you reach a point where you do not pay it at all -- while cutting our unfunded federal liabilities by tens of trillions of dollars. Means test everything. You're welcome. Yoda out... That is one way. It would be accepted by most if the means testing in the beginning was something like a decrease of a buck in your payment for every three bucks you were over some threshold. If needed, you could adjust that over time till it was phased out. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Apr 20, 2011 10:24:47 GMT -8
Here's how you fix social security... Replace it with a minimum national income for those over 65. You could increase the amount received by those living on social security and little else, gradually phase it out to those above that until you reach a point where you do not pay it at all -- while cutting our unfunded federal liabilities by tens of trillions of dollars. Means test everything. You're welcome. Yoda out... That would be an open invitation for many people to be fiscally irresponsible about their retirement. Why save if the government is going to take care of me any way? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 20, 2011 10:52:30 GMT -8
Here's how you fix social security... Replace it with a minimum national income for those over 65. You could increase the amount received by those living on social security and little else, gradually phase it out to those above that until you reach a point where you do not pay it at all -- while cutting our unfunded federal liabilities by tens of trillions of dollars. Means test everything. You're welcome. Yoda out... What do you think the minimum national income for those over 65 should be? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 20, 2011 15:11:59 GMT -8
I know we have talked about this before. I say we need to remove the earnings cap, increase retirement age to reflect current longevity, and change the COLA calculation. I brought this up in conversation with my highest net worth client when he picked up his tax return last week. My client and his wife had a good year in 2010. Their combined earned incomes were over 6 million dollars. Guess what? This multimillionaire did not scream bloody murder, and say he would leave the country, or quit working, or any of the things that conservatives say will happen if taxes on the rich are raised . He said that would probably go a long way to fix the problem. How can this be, conservatives? A rich man, by any definition, not complaining about paying higher taxes? How is this possible? Why would you think conservatives would be the ones against a means test for social security? A means test on SS is not a tax. The effect of not giving money to a rich person is not the same as raising their taxes. If you raise their taxes, they delay, forego, hide, reduce, or in some other way change their income. That hurts the economy. If you simply don't send them a SS check, it doesn't change their behavior at all. It therefore has no negative effect on the economy. I am fully in favor of means testing SS. I think most conservatives are in favor of that. I think we should change the COLA calculations back to how it was before. I think we should raise the retirement age (SS and MC) one month every year forever. If you are 40, you have 24 years to either plan on retiring later or save to bridge the 2 year gap. I don't think removing the earnings cap is a good idea unless it is part of a flat tax system. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 20, 2011 15:14:50 GMT -8
Here's how you fix social security... Replace it with a minimum national income for those over 65. You could increase the amount received by those living on social security and little else, gradually phase it out to those above that until you reach a point where you do not pay it at all -- while cutting our unfunded federal liabilities by tens of trillions of dollars. Means test everything. You're welcome. Yoda out... What do you think the minimum national income for those over 65 should be? Don't we have that now? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 20, 2011 15:36:14 GMT -8
I know we have talked about this before. I say we need to remove the earnings cap, increase retirement age to reflect current longevity, and change the COLA calculation. I brought this up in conversation with my highest net worth client when he picked up his tax return last week. My client and his wife had a good year in 2010. Their combined earned incomes were over 6 million dollars. Guess what? This multimillionaire did not scream bloody murder, and say he would leave the country, or quit working, or any of the things that conservatives say will happen if taxes on the rich are raised . He said that would probably go a long way to fix the problem. How can this be, conservatives? A rich man, by any definition, not complaining about paying higher taxes? How is this possible? Why would you think conservatives would be the ones against a means test for social security? A means test on SS is not a tax. The effect of not giving money to a rich person is not the same as raising their taxes. If you raise their taxes, they delay, forego, hide, reduce, or in some other way change their income. That hurts the economy. If you simply don't send them a SS check, it doesn't change their behavior at all. It therefore has no negative effect on the economy. I am fully in favor of means testing SS. I think most conservatives are in favor of that. I think we should change the COLA calculations back to how it was before. I think we should raise the retirement age (SS and MC) one month every year forever. If you are 40, you have 24 years to either plan on retiring later or save to bridge the 2 year gap. I don't think removing the earnings cap is a good idea unless it is part of a flat tax system. Means testing? You must have confused my post with another. I said nothing about means testing. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 20, 2011 15:38:50 GMT -8
What do you think the minimum national income for those over 65 should be? Don't we have that now? Social Security does have a minimum benefit. You need to have 11 years of work to qualify. It is very small. Around 60.00 a month. The minimum amount increases with your years of work. Is that what you are talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 20, 2011 15:39:30 GMT -8
Millionaires should not be receiving SS benefits. Yes, I know they paid into it. Yes, I know it violates conservative principles. Yes, I know it's their money. But no, they don't need it. It wouldn't cause them any suffering to have their benefits terminated. They already have benefited from the "american dream" (most likely the inheritance part). They should be willing and GLAD to give back in this way. So at least temporarily, stop the madness of guys like reagan, bush, Carter, and anyone named Kennedy getting SS benefits. Also, raise the eligibility age a couple years. Then do something about illegal immigration and fix a few bloated federal programs (including SS). Then after the country is solvent again, let the rich back in if they're greedy enough to want that. "Violates conservative principles"? What conservative principles do you think that violates? Is it the conservatives that scream whenever means testing is proposed? No, it is the liberals in AARP. Why would anyone think conservatives want money taken from minimum wage working single mothers and given to millionaires? SS is not something conservatives support. It is a legacy system that is so firmly rooted that it is difficult to remove. But the system is not based upon good conservative principles - it is rooted in socialism.
You hear those that scream about these things say, "we paid into it". My response is: Well sir, you didn't have a choice. Without a choice there is no contract. The money you paid went to your father's generation. The money you paid is gone. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 20, 2011 15:43:32 GMT -8
Means testing? You must have confused my post with another. I said nothing about means testing. You are right. I misread your post. You are talking about raising the marginal tax rates on those earning over 100K by 14%. That would be a very bad thing for the economy and would probably reduce economic activity enough to actually have a negative effect on the income to the government. Not only is it a 14% tax but it is a 14% tax that can not be reduced by deductions. Bad idea that wouldn't work. Absolute killer for small business. Why would you be for having the "rich" pay more but not for having the "rich" get less? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 21, 2011 7:14:03 GMT -8
Means testing? You must have confused my post with another. I said nothing about means testing. You are right. I misread your post. You are talking about raising the marginal tax rates on those earning over 100K by 14%. That would be a very bad thing for the economy and would probably reduce economic activity enough to actually have a negative effect on the income to the government. Not only is it a 14% tax but it is a 14% tax that can not be reduced by deductions. Bad idea that wouldn't work. Absolute killer for small business. Why would you be for having the "rich" pay more but not for having the "rich" get less? Don't worry, Bill. The tax increase will just be built into the cost of doing business. ;D To be more serious, you will note that I call for a three pronged approach. Tax increases were only one part. Absulute killer for small business? Twaddle. Most small businesses would not even be effected. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 21, 2011 15:27:05 GMT -8
I know we have talked about this before. I say we need to remove the earnings cap, increase retirement age to reflect current longevity, and change the COLA calculation. I brought this up in conversation with my highest net worth client when he picked up his tax return last week. My client and his wife had a good year in 2010. Their combined earned incomes were over 6 million dollars. Guess what? This multimillionaire did not scream bloody murder, and say he would leave the country, or quit working, or any of the things that conservatives say will happen if taxes on the rich are raised . He said that would probably go a long way to fix the problem. How can this be, conservatives? A rich man, by any definition, not complaining about paying higher taxes? How is this possible? Next year when this rich guy comes in for you to do his taxes (because he is either too stupid or too lazy to do it himself), and if he complains that his taxes are too low, offer him this: Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782 You're welcome. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 21, 2011 16:20:31 GMT -8
I know we have talked about this before. I say we need to remove the earnings cap, increase retirement age to reflect current longevity, and change the COLA calculation. I brought this up in conversation with my highest net worth client when he picked up his tax return last week. My client and his wife had a good year in 2010. Their combined earned incomes were over 6 million dollars. Guess what? This multimillionaire did not scream bloody murder, and say he would leave the country, or quit working, or any of the things that conservatives say will happen if taxes on the rich are raised . He said that would probably go a long way to fix the problem. How can this be, conservatives? A rich man, by any definition, not complaining about paying higher taxes? How is this possible? Next year when this rich guy comes in for you to do his taxes (because he is either too stupid or too lazy to do it himself), and if he complains that his taxes are too low, offer him this: Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782 You're welcome. Thread killer!  I am sure that Aztec70 will have that as part of the package he gives to his tax clients. This imaginary benevolent client exists only on this thread on this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 21, 2011 20:00:15 GMT -8
I know we have talked about this before. I say we need to remove the earnings cap, increase retirement age to reflect current longevity, and change the COLA calculation. I brought this up in conversation with my highest net worth client when he picked up his tax return last week. My client and his wife had a good year in 2010. Their combined earned incomes were over 6 million dollars. Guess what? This multimillionaire did not scream bloody murder, and say he would leave the country, or quit working, or any of the things that conservatives say will happen if taxes on the rich are raised . He said that would probably go a long way to fix the problem. How can this be, conservatives? A rich man, by any definition, not complaining about paying higher taxes? How is this possible? Next year when this rich guy comes in for you to do his taxes (because he is either too stupid or too lazy to do it himself), and if he complains that his taxes are too low, offer him this: Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782 You're welcome. LOL My client is neither stupid nor lazy. No one in his peer group does their own taxes. Their time is too valuable. I can't imagine that is the case for you. Besides, he does not pay for it himself. My fee is an executive benefit for him. His employer knows his time is too valuable to use preparing his own return.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 22, 2011 11:07:31 GMT -8
Next year when this rich guy comes in for you to do his taxes (because he is either too stupid or too lazy to do it himself), and if he complains that his taxes are too low, offer him this: Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782 You're welcome. LOL My client is neither stupid nor lazy. No one in his peer group does their own taxes. Their time is too valuable. I can't imagine that is the case for you. Besides, he does not pay for it himself. My fee is an executive benefit for him. His employer knows his time is too valuable to use preparing his own return. That may be close to true, but avoids the issue. I also have to wonder why a man so important and successful would have his tax status put in jeopardy by having that function handled by a person obviously much less capable than himself. I think I would consider doing it myself for peace of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Apr 22, 2011 13:17:48 GMT -8
Next year when this rich guy comes in for you to do his taxes (because he is either too stupid or too lazy to do it himself), and if he complains that his taxes are too low, offer him this: Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.
Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782 You're welcome. LOL My client is neither stupid nor lazy. No one in his peer group does their own taxes. Their time is too valuable. I can't imagine that is the case for you. Besides, he does not pay for it himself. My fee is an executive benefit for him. His employer knows his time is too valuable to use preparing his own return. Well then, by all means give him the information I provided so that he can make a gift to the Treasury. I'd think he could at least donate an amount equal to the fee his company pays you to do his taxes. Then again, maybe not. tinyurl.com/424qfye |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 22, 2011 14:58:32 GMT -8
LOL My client is neither stupid nor lazy. No one in his peer group does their own taxes. Their time is too valuable. I can't imagine that is the case for you. Besides, he does not pay for it himself. My fee is an executive benefit for him. His employer knows his time is too valuable to use preparing his own return. Well then, by all means give him the information I provided so that he can make a gift to the Treasury. I'd think he could at least donate an amount equal to the fee his company pays you to do his taxes. Then again, maybe not. tinyurl.com/424qfyeYou must also remember that it is just about that high of odds that the imaginary "client" is real. |
|
I am sure that Aztec70 will have that as part of the package he gives to his tax clients. This imaginary benevolent client exists only on this thread on this forum.