Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cool!

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

"need i say more"

It is an interesting website, but yes, please do say more. (: Is being on the board of multiple companies a bad thing? Is it wrong that a wealthy person does have a great deal of influence in American life?

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

i really did not have anything more to say http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

"No one said the rich are evil. The point is the tax cut is unfair. "

I suppose this is an issue of how you view Social Security. My understanding is that Social Security is a "forced" retirement plan on US citizens. The amount you receive from the plan should be somewhat comparable to the amount you contributed to it. It is handled by the government to average out things of people dying soon (and not collecting any) and people living too long (exhausting any amount they would have contributed). Just being an American citizen does not guarantee you that you have social security. You must pay into it over a period of around 20 years I believe in order to have full eligibility. Since it is a retirement plan that is supposed to ensure people avoid poverty, not to ensure they have the same way of life they had while working, I believe that it is reasonable to cap the amount people are paying in (otherwise they would have an inequity where people were paying too much and never had the hope of using all of the money contributed). The wealthy, however, don't plan on living on just want SS would give you at 77k per year, so they normally are going to invest in 401k plans, IRAs, and in other ways contribute to retirement plans in excess of the 77k per year limit. So in that sense, they still are paying social security.

On the other hand, if you look at social security as something like free medical insurance like you have in some countries, then I can see how you would view it as just another government expenditure, and in which case you might as well must make it all a part of income tax, and not have a separate line item for it.

As for the comments about social security and income tax all being used for the general budget, yes, I am sure they are all in the same bank account, held by Uncle Sam. Yes, I am sure, that during times of deficit spending, if there is a surplus with Social Security, other programs will take money from it to avoid having to issue bonds (which does save the taxpayers money). In theory, if SS starts to demand more money to maintain the benefits it provides, I would imagine that the income tax revenues would be touched to ensure no loss of benefits would occur (and probably a raise of the Social Security tax as well). Yet, for the most part, the money sent in for Social Security gets spent on Social Security benefits (correct me if I am wrong). As such, I don't feel it is fair to view it as the same as income tax, and as such, I don't feel the poor are being treated unfairly if the rich have their income tax rates reduced.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one said the rich are evil. The point is the tax cut is unfair.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, the tax system as it is is unfair.

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one said the rich are evil. The point is the tax cut is unfair.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, the tax system as it is is unfair.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree with you 100%!

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

OK, so what is a fair tax system?

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

Here's my concept, then..or rather my "hey, this would be a good idea" section.

1. No tax brackets. If the tax rate goes up as income goes up, make it do so -gradually-. Leads to 2..

2. No matter what, you make more money you -bring home- more money. A tax system that doesn't do this is almost the definition of unfair.

3. Simple is good. Unfortunately you get problems here. Simple means people try to weasel their way out of things. Laws are written in very specific anal ways for a reason unfortunately.

Phoenix-D

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Something where people pay a fair share, not where the rich pay huge amounts of their income in taxes. You know, something more like a flat tax system. As it is, rich people pay a drastically higher percentage of income in taxes than poor people, but get much less in the way of benefits than they do. That is not fair in any way.

[ February 09, 2003, 07:11: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: OT: Rating the President
 

You folks might be alluding to a consumption tax.

Income tax taxes income, obviously, which in a way discourages more work because it puts you in a higher tax bracket making your harder work not worth as much. But you can spend as much as you want under this system (yes, most states have excise taxes too but this is theory). So basically the income tax system encourages more spending and discourages more work. Now why would you want a system that does that?

In a consumption tax system, you pay no income tax but you pay taxes on what you spend i.e. all taxes are excise taxes. In this system you are discouraged from spending and encouraged to work because your income is not taxed. People & businesses that consume a lot pay a lot. Most consumption tax proposals do not tax food & medical expenses. Let's see... less spending, more work & more saving... Isn't that a system that would make the economy strong?

Slick.

[ February 09, 2003, 08:09: Message edited by: Slick ]