Dumb Political Correctness

Raise the payroll tax to a real tax, like 10%
Click to expand...

7.5% (or 15% for self-employed, contractors, etc) is pretty hefty for a lot of people already, especially on top of all the other ways people are taxed.

since the feds got away with assessing a fee for those who didn't buy one of the crappy crap crap offerings...that got declared as something other than a tax as I recall
Click to expand...

It was Schroedinger's Penalty - a superposition of a tax and a fine that only resolved to one or the other when needed to dodge some specific component of the law.
 
I just learned two new terms underlying California's ban on school suspensions:

1) Restorative justice
2) Healing circles

Virtue signaling and sanctimony gone wild. Of course, there must be some serious science (peer reviewed) behind all of that so I'm the idiot I guess.
 
Statalyzer said:
7.5% (or 15% for self-employed, contractors, etc) is pretty hefty for a lot of people already, especially on top of all the other ways people are taxed.
Click to expand...

Yes, 6.2% SS and 1.45% for Medicare. However if you want these programs to continue you need to increase the payroll tax and not rely on general tax revenue. Note low earners get more out of SS than higher earners do. Thus, it is already subsidized by the rich. Raise the payroll tax but lower corporate tax to offset the higher labor expense. If so, contractors should be able to pass half of the tax increase off to the employer in terms of higher pay.
 
Monahorns said:
God no. No more taxes please. Let me keep my money. I don't need the government to hold on to it for me.
Click to expand...
Entitlements, which are not going away, benefit the poor and lower middle class more than anyone else. As such they need to pay more. Having more people pay slightly more will keep rates down for everyone else (middle class and higher). The alternative is raise taxes on the upper 50% who do pay taxes.
 
My proposal is a phase out where taxes go down over time as benefits phase out. I get screwed either way, but it is better than paying retirement for people today and then the program falling apart while I get 0. Phase it out now. Start by putting an income cap on who receives it. Then specify for what ages the benefit goes away. Reduce other taxes so that people will have money to invest retirement. Have to get rid of this socialist atrocity.
 
If you look at the % of Americans who have what dollars saved for retirement, you will see there is no way they can let SS go bust. Sadly, it's all most folks have.
 
Monahorns said:
Nope. Don't want to give one more cent to the crooks in DC. I would vote for secession before I would vote for that.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately most people want entitlements. Beat we can hope for is to let it boomerang, sort of like Harry Reid getting rid of the judicial filibuster.
 
EE1L75OXsAAZmAw.jpg
 
Mr. Deez said:
Trudeau is such a smug douche. I'd love to see the guy lose.
Click to expand...

It's sort of the Canadian Bacon version of Bill Clinton. With Bill, it was whether rape and corruption allegations were enough to overcome liberal female voters desire to have sex with him. Here, it is whether blackface is enough to overcome socialist female libido? The latter usually wins, but we will see
 
horninchicago said:
I'm sure she will gladly surrender those weapons due to her mental illness.
Click to expand...

This story reminds me of Carl Rowan, a columnist for the WAPO back in the day. He regularly railed against gun ownership - perhaps more than any other national newspaper person.

Then he was arrested for discharging his unregistered gun (late '80s I think). He actually took a shot at a teenage neighbor who had been skinny dipping in his pool. Bottom line, they are all hypocrites. Just like the Bolsheviks, they think they will still get to own guns after they take all of ours away. And fly on private planes once the rest of us all are back on horses. It's always the same with these people. Time doesn't change it.
 
Different rules for different people is not the way its supposed to go


So .... if there are old pictures of you floating around out there like these, just make sure you quickly register as a Democrat and you will be fine. Water under the bridge
DyXmKeRXQAADPRX.jpg
 
Joe Fan said:
Different rules for different people is not the way its supposed to go


So .... if there are old pictures of you floating around out there like these, just make sure you quickly register as a Democrat and you will be fine. Water under the bridge
DyXmKeRXQAADPRX.jpg
Click to expand...

Right. Someone said this will end his career. Northam seems to still be in office and no one is talking about it. Except hornfans.
 
Joe Fan said:
...Then he was arrested for discharging his unregistered gun (late '80s I think). He actually took a shot at a teenage neighbor who had been skinny dipping in his pool. Bottom line, they are all hypocrites. Just like the Bolsheviks, they think they will still get to own guns after they take all of ours away. And fly on private planes once the rest of us all are back on horses. It's always the same with these people. Time doesn't change it.
Click to expand...

Timely enough
EEyDht1XYAE-ma_.jpg
 
mchammer said:
Note low earners get more out of SS than higher earners do. Thus, it is already subsidized by the rich.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this statement? Everything that I have read on SS would contradict this statement. If you happen to maximize your FICA tax for 35 years of your work history then you maximize your SS benefits, as long as you draw on it after you reach full retirement age. Those who cannot maximize their FICA earnings will draw way less than those who have over a 35 year work history.

I didn't realize this until my dad pointed it out to me about those who earn more than the maximum, which is the following example:

If person A earns $50,000 a year they will pay the full 6.2% FICA tax on their income.

If person B earns $250,000 a year they will pay an overall reduced rate of the 6.2% since no more taxes are withdrawn after the cap which is $132,800 this year (something close to that number anyway) .

The other side of this is that higher earners more than likely save or invest some of their income and will be able to offset their future retirement payments from SS with investment dividends or some type of annuity.

I don't see how the higher earners get less than those who make less from SS. I see the opposite. Not only do they make more from SS but they more than likely have extra from other sources on top of SS while the rest get less from SS and probably won't have other sources of income at retirement.
 
militaryhorn said:
What do you mean by this statement? Everything that I have read on SS would contradict this statement. If you happen to maximize your FICA tax for 35 years of your work history then you maximize your SS benefits, as long as you draw on it after you reach full retirement age. Those who cannot maximize their FICA earnings will draw way less than those who have over a 35 year work history.

I didn't realize this until my dad pointed it out to me about those who earn more than the maximum, which is the following example:

If person A earns $50,000 a year they will pay the full 6.2% FICA tax on their income.

If person B earns $250,000 a year they will pay an overall reduced rate of the 6.2% since no more taxes are withdrawn after the cap which is $132,800 this year (something close to that number anyway) .

The other side of this is that higher earners more than likely save or invest some of their income and will be able to offset their future retirement payments from SS with investment dividends or some type of annuity.

I don't see how the higher earners get less than those who make less from SS. I see the opposite. Not only do they make more from SS but they more than likely have extra from other sources on top of SS while the rest get less from SS and probably won't have other sources of income at retirement.
Click to expand...
For the portion of your paycheck that is contributed to SS, the low earner will get a higher % returned to them than a higher earner. I am speaking on a relative basis, not absolute basis. In other words, SS offers a better return to lower earners than higher earners all else equal (e.g., assuming they retire and die at the same time).
 
mchammer said:
For the portion of your paycheck that is contributed to SS, the low earner will get a higher % returned to them than a higher earner. I am speaking on a relative basis, not absolute basis. In other words, SS offers a better return to lower earners than higher earners all else equal (e.g., assuming they retire and die at the same time).
Click to expand...

Of course, what's sad is that if SS was invested privately rather than pissed away, both low income and higher income people would all have far more generous retirement, and our long term fiscal situation would be dramatically better. Left wing stupidity and fraud on this issue literally costs us hundreds of billions of dollars (maybe even more) every year.
 
Joe Fan said:
Ever wonder how Ed Buck managed to avoid a lengthy prison sentence for so long? Same way that Jeff Epstein did. Check out a list of politicians receiving the maximum contributions from Buck (who was just arrested for allegedly running a drug den in exchange for participation in his sexual fetishes). And you already know which political party controls all things California. Wonder if he will be on the same suicide watch Epstein was?
Ted Lieu
Adam Schiff
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Donor Lookup
Click to expand...

Hanna is the USA for the CD Cal appointed by Trump. Given that Buck has long had protection at the state level, if any form of justice was going to find this guy, it was always the federal level. Feds or nothing. If Hillary had won, there would have been a different USA here and Buck would still be free and carrying on
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top