AOC = HRC 2.0

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Deadtigers, Jan 7, 2019.

  1. Dr. Wankler

    Dr. Wankler Member+

    May 2, 2001
    The Electric City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Um. Did you inadvertently post a pornhub search?
     
    luftmensch, chaski, rslfanboy and 6 others repped this.
  2. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    "IMF, dirty MF, takes away everything it can get"

    From my favorite rock song about the International Monetary Fund, written by Bruce Cockburn.
     
    luftmensch, Moishe and Dr. Wankler repped this.
  3. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    #2803 VFish, Jan 27, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2020
    You do realize both the left and the right passed by-partisan reform in 1983 to save Social Security into perpetuity, right? And then 20 years later we found ourselves in the same situation, and today it is a bigger mess. I understand you don't care because you are old and you benefits won't be cut, but I think we owe the next generation of Social Security recipients a better answer.
     
  4. Funkfoot

    Funkfoot Member+

    May 18, 2002
    New Orleans, LA
    We all deserve better from congress on many different issues.
     
    stanger repped this.
  5. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This part is not true.

    1. Reagan enacted a massive tax cut, mostly on those who "supply" capital.
    2. This was supposed to create a massive expansion in our economy, so that the tax cuts paid for themselves.
    3. They did not because supply side economics is a stupid theory.
    4. We had a huge deficit.
    5. Bothsides got together to "save" SS. The plan was to have SS run a surplus while the boomers were all earning, with the money going into a trust fund that would pay boomers their SS when the time came. We enacted a regressive SS tax increase to make up for the regressive supply side cuts.
    6. When the time came to pay the piper, Bush II slashed taxes.

    It's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of it.
     
    fatbastard and xtomx repped this.
  6. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Dave, as always you are such a blind revisionist when it comes to history. The Social Security Reform Act of 1983 cut benefits and raised the FICA tax. Both sides said it "saved Social Security" when in reality it simply kicked the can down the road. You can spin it however you like, but you will still be lying.
     
  7. xtomx

    xtomx Member+

    Chicago Fire
    Sep 6, 2001
    Northern Wisconsin, but not far from civilization
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Yes, but the grand bargain was not that grand for working people.

    Yes, because St. Reagan began to borrow heavily from the Social Security Trust Fund.

    We do and there are two simple fixes:
    1) Remove the cap on contributions.
    2) Anyone who uses capital gains as more than "X" percentage of their annual income (I would put it at 1%, but 33-50% is more likely) has to pay into Social Security to the amount that they use Social Security as "income."


    Agreed (I took out the personal snark).
     
    fatbastard repped this.
  8. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    It was Johnson that started robbing the "Trust fund".

    A couple points here:

    1. You can remove the cap on contributions and the system still in running a huge deficit.
    2. Your solution has just changed the fundamental principles of the program. You sure you want to go there?
     
  9. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I know you are but what am I.
     
  10. xtomx

    xtomx Member+

    Chicago Fire
    Sep 6, 2001
    Northern Wisconsin, but not far from civilization
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    It was Johnson who first put Social Security "on budget" (and subject to taking).
    Reagan began the wholesale borrowing.
    1. It would go quite a long way to plugging the holes. It should have been done all along.
    2. Yes, yes I do want to go there. I think everyone who is earning income should pay into the system.
     
    dapip repped this.
  11. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Everyone earning an income does pay into the system. Me thinks you don't understand how the system works.
     
  12. Q*bert Jones III

    Q*bert Jones III The People's Poet

    Feb 12, 2005
    Woodstock, NY
    Club:
    DC United
    Now you're just being silly. Long term capital gains taxes max out at 20% for someone who contributes nothing to society and simply sucks the blood out of the corpse of late stage capitalism. But I pay 32% on my hard-earned labor.

    As always, if we simply tax everybody's money at the same rate, all the budgetary problems magically disappear.
     
    dapip and fatbastard repped this.
  13. xtomx

    xtomx Member+

    Chicago Fire
    Sep 6, 2001
    Northern Wisconsin, but not far from civilization
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    That is simply not true.

    First, your qualifier "earning an income" disqualifies all people who may have great wealth, but not from "earning an income" in the traditional sense (inheritance, receiving funds from a trust, etc.).

    Second, certain people are exempt. For example, no Social Security is deducted from my teaching pay, due to my paying into the "teacher's pension." I am not in favor of that and I have requested to have Social Security deducted. Since I currently teach as an adjunct, it really does not have much of an effect on me, but I want the Social Security deducted.

    People who have "Religious exemptions" do not pay into Social Security.

    Here is an old article (December, 2019) that provides an explanation.

    https://smartasset.com/retirement/exempt-from-social-security-taxes

    Of course, people who work "for cash" do not pay into Social Security, but, legally, they are not allowed to work "for cash" and should be filing taxes and paying taxes and Social Security.
     
  14. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Earned income vs. unearned income, there are reasons there is a distinction.
     
  15. fatbastard

    fatbastard Member+

    Aug 1, 2003
    Lincoln (ish), Va
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    yes, the reason is lobbying
     
  16. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina

    Except that with very few exceptions, most people who buy and sell their home, their stocks, bonds, investments etc. are not "people who contribute nothing to society and simply suck the blood out of the corpse of late stage capitalism", as you so eloquently put it.

    In fact, the vast majority are mostly regular folk who hard work every day just like you and I do. Having to pay higher taxes and Social Security on capital gains will hurt regular folk. Often those who have to sell their home and other investments have to do so precisely because they are going through tough times and need to make adjustments in their life. (Job loss, divorce, trying to avoid bankruptcy, death of a loved one etc.)

    If you are suggesting raising taxes and charging social security on capital gains as a mean to punitively punish "the 1 percent", you should realize that it will mostly adversely affect "the other 99 percent".

    There are good reasons why countries that in other ways have more progressive and "socialist" policies than the US have lower capital gains tax rates.
     
  17. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Defining it as just those that have an Income is incorrect, there are a few jobs or exceptions on employee, self employed income so they do not pay Payroll taxes.

    As xtomx explains below, there are religious exceptions, and some foreign dignitaries also are except.

    But only income based on employment is taxed with social security, passive income is not.

    This could include on top of what Xtomx described above, rental property income, Dividend income, Loan interest income, ect.

    There is a good reason on why passive income on savings or investments is not taxed as employee tax to fund an employee based insurance program.

    Obviously we are a democracy and we can elect people that can make changes and ignore or decide that those reasons should not apply any longer.

     
  18. Q*bert Jones III

    Q*bert Jones III The People's Poet

    Feb 12, 2005
    Woodstock, NY
    Club:
    DC United
    That's fair, of course. You could even argue that was true of stocks and bonds in some cases. But the people who live off their dad's stock dividends pay ridiculously low rates compared to what I, an honest workingman, pay. It's class warfare, there's no other way to describe it.
     
    xtomx repped this.
  19. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    This is why democrat talking point is we will only tax those making above X amount, they know that taxing the other is more popular than taxing the all.
     
  20. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    By this definition, 401K programs are class warfare and retirement programs that invest in the stock market to get better returns for their pensioners are also class warfare.


    I want to tax capital gains and dividend income with payroll taxes, but calling it class warfare is a bullshit talking point.
     
  21. song219

    song219 BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 5, 2004
    La Norte
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    Vanuatu
    Tax warfare was gutting regular pensions so that 401(k) was necessary.
     
  22. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why?
     
  23. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    True, but those are the few exceptions to the rule that I mentioned. The majority of people are faced with capital gains when we sell the few assets we have, and most of us sell our few assets because of changes in our lives, often negative changes. Even inheritances, for most of us are relatively modest, and come as a small consolation that might help us as we get through a time of the grieving, unexpected expenses and additional work that result from the death of loved ones.
     
  24. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Yeah, the problem is that "taxing the other" is far from being enough to pay for what some of them are promising. And this is true even without taking into account the fact that there is a point in the curve at which "overtaxing the other" starts having negative consequences for the economy.
     
    Funkfoot repped this.
  25. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I am not sure about state (as in the state of California for example) law, but for federal inheritance tax kicks in at 11 million as of last year (way too high IMO), and funeral expenses can be deducted from the state when they file the last income return.

    So if it is "modest", you won't pay federal tax and if the state is leaving behind more than 11 million, then depending on how fancy the funeral you want to have for your loved one, there should be some left over to divide among the family.


    It is worse for people that do not get any inheritance from a deceased family member and still have to pay for funeral expenses, those are not tax deductible, you can bill the state of the deceased, maybe you can get some money back from that.

    https://finance.zacks.com/can-funeral-expense-deduction-taxes-6936.html
     

Share This Page