 |
"In our free report "3 Stocks That Will Help You Retire Rich," we name stocks that could help you build long-term wealth and retire well, along with some winning wealth-building strategies that every investor should be aware of. Click here now to keep reading. "
Is that why the word "Advertisement" appears at the top of the page in that LA Times article- perhaps?
Here is Dr Carson on a flat tax...
"What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he's given us a system. It's called a tithe."
"We don't necessarily have to do 10% but it's the principle. He didn't say if your crops fail, don't give me any tithe or if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithe. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one. Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes. Some people say, 'Well that's not fair because it doesn't hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made 10.' Where does it say you've got to hurt the guy? He just put a billion dollars in the pot. We don't need to hurt him. It's that kind of thinking that has resulted in 602 banks in the Cayman Islands. That money needs to be back here building our infrastructure and creating jobs."
A well placed advertisement indeed. Ironic to me as I sipped my coffee.Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
That's the whole problem with any system, Gods(?), or mans (or capitalists), loop holes.Quote:
Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes
There would be no loopholes in a flat tax. Loopholes are prevalent in a progressive system.
Hello again, tom:
What you righty's don't get, or don't CARE to get, is that the single dollar that the guy who earns $10 has to pay, means a lot more to HIM than the billion the $10 billionaire has to give up..
It's not fair. It's not even close.
excon
Loopholes are prevalent whenever a capitalists writes the rules for his greed... oooops... I mean right to make money by any mean necessary even cheat, steal or LIE.
Rich guys will always have a reason to have an exception to any rule. You want a flat tax? Okay are you guys willing to have ALL your money taxed the same way at the same rate? I don't think so. Then you wouldn't need an accountant to find ways to get around paying he whole flat tax you owe. Wonder who gives up all those tax shelters and charitable deductions?
We have been down this road of giving rich guys more loot. It has always resulted in less loot for the rest of the WORLD.
You are right... I'll never get that a progressive tax is a fair tax. The way I see it ;punishing success is unfair . It is also stupid because it encourages the loop holes to be created . I think income taxes are a bad idea anyway. But ,if you are going to have them ,then they should be the same as the consumption taxes .Same concept too. The rich spend more ;they pay more in taxes .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Progressive,consumption,flat, doesn't matter because rich guys have power and influence to do as they please and screw the rest.
The more poor people pay, even a dollar, the more a capitalist takes. Its called the free market and its legal because they made it so. Its tyranny with a dollar sign. Slavery with a decimal point.
Free market my a$$, that's a marketing scheme like "job creators" to cover the true greedy nature of rich guys.
Yes Tom it is a good system if you bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, but you know Tom the jews found ways not to pay the whiole tithe and look what happened to them, so don't propose the system unless you propose to stick by it, remembering what the tithe was used for; social welfareQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
In a sense you are right because the religious leaders ran the state .But when Rome was the law it would've been unthinkable to tithe to the Romans.Under the New Covenant tithe should voluntarily go for charity... not to a welfare state . So ,I'll continue to contribute to the church for their ministries . The tithing example related to taxes only works for the purpose of proportionality; not for the purpose of coercive enforcement of what the state deems should be given to charity .
A tithe demanded from every member isn't coercive?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
My son's church is very concerned about Haiti and the poverty there and runs missions and donates money to help Haitians (but really isn't sure where the money ends up), yet people in the next suburb over from where their church is located are financially strapped and need mentoring and life/job coaching. There seems to be a disconnect.
Hello again,
The Catholic Church CONTINUES it's lawlessness... I'd NEVER listen to ANYTHING these child molester have to say.
excon
Tom the tithe to the church should not be deductable that robs both God and Casear. I don't wonder why your nation is no longer blessed
If you've read my positions on taxation and on the establishment clause then you know I oppose deductions ,and any special ta status given to churches .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Also... as I've already pointed out ; the example of tithing is ONLY useful in it's proportionality of tax rates .
the rebuke of Cardinal Roger Mahony by his successor is "continuing it's lawlessness" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
A tithe today is completely voluntary... it is more of a guideline than a mandate. But as I told Clete. The example of a tithe by Dr Carson is used to illustrate the fairness of a flat tax.Quote:
A tithe demanded from every member isn't coercive?
Tom a flat tax worked in a society where in reality only the landed gentry paid the tithe, or tax. It is not a reality today at 10% because the tax is required to provide much more. As a example, since we no longer rely on God our medical bills have soared, since we are perpetually at war or in preparation for war, our military is vastly more expensive and since we no longer have benevolent kings builting the inferstructure, that too has to be provided.. as I have said to you before make the tax 20% and a consumption tax and you will get out of the hole you have dug yourselfQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Dr Duncan makes it a point in saying that he wasn't using 10% as a guideline . His only contention is that no matter what the rate ;it should remain flat . And he's right .
Hello again, tom:
He's WRONG.. A flat tax rewards the wealthy and punishes the poor.. It's a veritable right wing orgasm.
excon
Nothing like a comprehensive jobs program to get us going and increase revenues. Pretty obvious the job creators are busy with other things so we just have to hire new ones. I think if states would partner with federal government instead of trying to control woman's parts and voters, then the could cut the red tap and start repairing a crumbling infrastructure neglected for far to long.
Then at least we won't have to be embarrassed with a power outage during the Superbowl, or power outages after mother nature has knocked down trees that should have been pruned away from power lines last spring. The opportunity to grow the economy is being squandered while interest rates are at damn near zero, while we debate cuts and taxes.
Revenue always has tobe part of the solution.
That explains why they also defend rape as a legit way to make babies.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No he's not wrong... face it... you don't care if there is a balanced budget ;you look at taxes as a redistribution tool .
No, taxes fund projects for the good of all. That's what socialism is.
Congressional Progressive Caucus : The People's Budget
http://epi.3cdn.net/55d8ba5873e5bd097e_avm6b8rb1.pdf
You said you liked BALANCED budgets didn't you?Quote:
The People's Budget is projected to run lower deficits and place public debt on a more
Sustainable trajectory than either the House Republican Budget or the president's budgets. The
Projected surplus in 2021 (0.1% of GDP) compares with a deficit of 1.6% of GDP under the
House Republican Budget56 and 4.9% of GDP under the president's budget (see Figure 4). The People's Budget is projected to bring debt as a share of GDP in 2021 to 64.1%, compared with debt at 67.5% of GDP under the House Republican Budget and 87.4% of GDP under the president's budget (see Figure 5).
There are a number of ways of balancing a budget, Tom, the most popular, or unpopular, are reduced expenditure and higher taxes. Redistribution of income becomes necessary when the majority or large numbers live in poverty while the rich continue in ignoranceQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The right doesn't want a balanced budget Clete, never have. They want lower taxes for the rich, smaller government, so they can write regulations for themselves and write off half their money to "charities" they create and control, and hide the other half and pay no taxes on it. The want to accomplish it by making the already poor even poorer, cutting programs for the poor, slashing wages and benefits for the middle class, and keep them in their debt through higher prices and shifting costs to the old young poor, and almost poor.
Then they can keep a standing army to clear the way for their businesses overseas, where there already are no rules, no taxes, and nobody to stop them. I have proof in writing by them, its called the Ryan Budget, passed twice in the house, and twice rejected by the American people. Its trickle down economics on steroids, and the preferred business model of capitalists and free marketeers. It benefits greatly a few, and severely punishes the rest.
Matter of fact all their ideas are. Be it taxes, jobs, or climate change, are geared to this philosophy of business. Just ask Tom and his flat tax support that he calls "fair". To them it's the only way, because they are the only ones that benefit. And to them, that's all that matters.
Of course its all that matters because its about having even more money for themselves, screw the rest let them get their own... if there is any left. They don't care if the budget gets balanced, they holler that crap to make sure they get more money and that's what capitalism is about, money before people.
Balanced yes. This way. Nope. It kills off the middle class. It makes quite a few assumptions that aren't even real and it doesn't address what is going to happen with obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Please elaborate.
Tal I don't have a problem with a balanced budget, in fact I live in a nation where they appear to have achieved that at a federal level on some occasions in recent memory. Even those you would consider socialist have that objective. We are able to achieve this because generally we don't have an obstructive house and this is because the national leaders and the party with the majority in the house are on the same page so when the budget is written they know they accept the objectives. Your national government appears to have been set up so it cannot govern effectively and I suspect it is part of the same capitalist plot you outline
I think timing is everything and that requires the flexibility to make small changes when needed. We have lost that ability to make those small changes. Even Reagan who I never agreed with was probably the most flexible president we had. I mean he was a trickle downer, and he did trickle a little down, but now the trickle has completely stopped.
The rich turned off the spicket, and have completely cut off all circulation to what we all need. Unlike my right wing friends, I think when the demand is so low then taxes must be raised until circulation has been restored. In a consumer driven economy if you don't feed the consumer, the economy contracts, and the middle class has to hoard whatever they can just to feed themselves.
There is the mistake, the idea that hoarding will preserve your way of lifeQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Its not a way of life, its preserving your grocery bill.
There are provisions in it that directly affect the middle class and poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
• Trains teachers and restores schools; rebuilds roads and bridges and ensures that users help pay for them
Who do you think this will be passed on to? Toll roads so we pay more? Higher gas taxes?
• Implements a progressive estate tax
So if someone does a decent job of working their tush off all of their life and wants to pass something on to the kids then the goobermint wants their slice of the pie too. Great way to step on the middle class and poor as nothing will be left to them.
• Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange
Many 401k plans allow you to spread the money over a spectrum of investment funds. Many middle class workers have access to a 401k and this would hurt them in the long run.
• Eliminates the individual Social Security payroll cap to make sure upper income earners pay their fair share
This is a lie in the making. If you already pay the maximum level then your going to get the maximum return even at the current settings. What this is is a money grab. Unlike many retirement funds where you have a beneficiary should you pass Social Security has no such provision. They actually hope you die before benefits are paid out.
• Invests in job creation, clean energy and broadband infrastructure, housing and R&D programs
• Cuts defense spending by reducing conventional forces, procurement, and costly R&D programs
Looks like double speak to me. On the one hand R&D is GREAT!! But then again maybe not so great??
That is why I could never be on board with this proposal. Its just another do as I say not do as I do scheme.
The second one refers to R&D specifically in defense.Quote:
Looks like double speak to me. On the one hand R&D is GREAT!! But then again maybe not so great??
Progressives don't believe what's yours is yours, (you didn't build that).Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
That's just the start, Dems want your 401ks in exchange for government "guaranteed retirement accounts".Quote:
• Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange
Many 401k plans allow you to spread the money over a spectrum of investment funds. Many middle class workers have access to a 401k and this would hurt them in the long run.
I know what the inference was. I was just pointing out how on the one hand is good thinking but if it is something they don't find important then your screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Quote:
QUOTE by califdadof3;
There are provisions in it that directly affect the middle class and poor.
• Trains teachers and restores schools; rebuilds roads and bridges and ensures that users help pay for them
Who do you think this will be passed on to? Toll roads so we pay more? Higher gas taxes?
Quote:
To help finance these long-term infrastructure improvements, the People’s Budget plan calls for a National Infrastructure Bank (I-Bank) to leverage private capital and direct investment toward projects of national importance. The People’s Budget adopts the six-year plan to establish
The I-Bank as presented in the president’s 2012 budget (part of the six-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal).6 The I-Bank would provide loans and grants to support individual projects and broader activities of significance to our Nation’s economic competitiveness. For example, the I-Bank could support improvements in road and rail access...
Quote:
The People’s Budget proposes raising the motor fuel excise tax by 25 cents as a direct funding mechanism to recapitalize the Highway Trust Fund and finance this surface transportation reauthorization proposal. This policy would increase the federal excise tax on gasoline to 43.4 cents and on diesel fuel to 49.4 cents per gallon. CBO estimates that raising the motor fuel tax by
25 cents would generate $140.2 billion over the 2012-16 period and $290.9 billion over the next decade.8 The current tax on motor fuels is insufficient to fund today’s level of highway spending, which is already inadequate. This policy would also help to correct for the negative social costs (particularly pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on foreign oil) of consuming
Petroleum.
NOBODY in the middle class or upper middle class is even remotely affected by this tax on high end earners and we are talking millionaires here.Quote:
• Implements a progressive estate tax
So if someone does a decent job of working their tush off all of their life and wants to pass something on to the kids then the goobermint wants their slice of the pie too. Great way to step on the middle class and poor as nothing will be left to them.
Nothing to do with 401k's, think hedge funds and venture capitalists. WallStreet,and Banks. Hey they got bailedout,its their turn.Quote:
• Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange
Many 401k plans allow you to spread the money over a spectrum of investment funds. Many middle class workers have access to a 401k and this would hurt them in the long run.
I will add during he last crisis, many 401k's lost money.Quote:
To offset the revenue loss relative to current law, and to meet deficit reduction targets, the People’s Budget would also broaden the base of the derivatives and speculation tax (see p. 19) to include up to a 0.1 percentage point speculation tax on each side of stock and equities transactions. Specifically, assuming a 50% behavioral reduction in trading volumes, such a transactions tax would raise up to $541.4 billion over 2012-21.36
SS has surviving spouse and children benefitsQuote:
• Eliminates the individual Social Security payroll cap to make sure upper income earners pay their fair share
This is a lie in the making. If you already pay the maximum level then your going to get the maximum return even at the current settings. What this is is a money grab. Unlike many retirement funds where you have a beneficiary should you pass Social Security has no such provision. They actually hope you die before benefits are paid out.
Survivors Planner: Social Security Benefit Amounts For The Surviving Spouse By Year Of Birth
Quote:
The increase in the taxable maximum on the employee side is gradually phased in over five years. The increase in employer contributions for high earners (those employees earning more than $106,800) would be phased in immediately. This option maintains the benefits structure as is, and benefit
Computations would reflect all earnings up to the new taxable maximum on the employee side, although increased employer contributions would not affect benefit computations. This policy raises $445.0 billion over five years, and around $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Social Security outlays would increase by $2.8 billion over 10 years.
Under the current system, income above a taxable maximum is not subject to any Social Security tax, meaning that high-income individuals pay less as a share of their income than everyone else. As income inequality has widened, a greater share of income has fallen outside of the taxable maximum, with the percent of earnings covered by the program slipping from 91% in 1983 to just 83% in 2009.13
Quote:
• Invests in job creation, clean energy and broadband infrastructure, housing and R&D programs
• Cuts defense spending by reducing conventional forces, procurement, and costly R&D programs
Looks like double speak to me. On the one hand R&D is GREAT!! But then again maybe not so great??
That is why I could never be on board with this proposal. Its just another do as I say not do as I do scheme.
Quote:
These proposals and their respective budgetary impact were compiled by Congressional Progressive Caucus staff in conjunction with Congressional Research Service staff and provided to EPI. Overall, these policy proposals would gradually reduce defense appropriations by $692.2 billion over the 2012-21 period, relative to the CBO baseline. Relative to higher spending levels
In the president’s budget request, they would represent $816.7 billion in savings over the next decade. In both cases, the savings are well within the bounds of the savings identified as reasonable by the SDTF report. Taken in conjunction with ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the realignment of conventional and strategic forces would result in $2.3 trillion worth of savings relative to the
Adjusted CBO baseline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I see no cap on that estate tax. You should keep in mind anyone making $250,000 in a years time is a rich person. And I can easily see this tax being applied should someone pay off their home and try to pass it along.
The added tax is going to hit the middle class and poor the most as does driving up the cost of anything.
Nothing about 401K's?
Might want to read this:
http://wiki.fool.com/The_Use_of_Hedge_Funds_in_401(k)
The surviving benefits are only applied in an if/then situation. You couldn't pass them to your nephews or nieces should you not have children of your own upon your demize or give it to charity if that is what you decide to do.
If your children are over 18 then they get nothing.
If your spouse (10 years or longer) survives you and has a lessor benefit then they can collect.
Like
Speech said... the Dems have plans for them 401-Ks .They think people are too stupid to make their own financial decisions.
People's Budget Plan; anything with the word people attached to it has got to be bad, right, got to be socialist, right.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:32 AM. |