Upper-Income taxpayers look for ways to sidestep Obama tax-hike plan...

[jerryskids 7,252]

Of bigger impact will be if he raises the FICA limits. I used to celebrate that day.

[Snoopy1 0]

I don't think this thread went as well as Posty thought it would...

[posty 2,867]

I don't think this thread went as well as Posty thought it would...

 

I was just posting an article, I had no idea what way it would go...

[wiffleball 4,799]

Of bigger impact will be if he raises the FICA limits. I used to celebrate that day.

 

They really need to. It would impact me, but I don't care. It's hugely regressive. It's ridiculous that Warren Buffet stops paying with his first paycheck, but his secretary pays all year long. I know you'll disagree, I won't debate, but there's no debate that it's a horribly regressive system of taxation. And yes, it is a tax. You don't get 100% of it back, it's used for other programs (no matter what they say), and it just makes sense to at LEAST say something like this:

 

"Okay, we're going to increase the floor to $40,000. We'll leave the ceiling where it's at. UNTIL your taxable income exceeds $500,000."

[cbfalcon 828]

I don't think this thread went as well as Posty thought it would...

 

He'll be back soon to talk about the psychological toll of bringing home a slightly smaller % of all the money you make above $250k.

 

laughable.

[wiffleball 4,799]

I was just posting an article, I had no idea what way it would go...

 

Man, that chickenshiit schtick gets old Posty. Grow a pair or get the fock out.

[Flashover 0]

That guy is the demographic the GOP aims for -- people who don't understand or won't accept the concept of progressive taxation, or even basic economics.

 

You just have to feed him soundbites about "socialism" and "wealth redistribution" and "raising taxes" and he's ready to take to the streets.

Sadly, I believe you are right.

[jerryskids 7,252]

They really need to. It would impact me, but I don't care. It's hugely regressive. It's ridiculous that Warren Buffet stops paying with his first paycheck, but his secretary pays all year long. I know you'll disagree, I won't debate, but there's no debate that it's a horribly regressive system of taxation. And yes, it is a tax. You don't get 100% of it back, it's used for other programs (no matter what they say), and it just makes sense to at LEAST say something like this:

 

"Okay, we're going to increase the floor to $40,000. We'll leave the ceiling where it's at. UNTIL your taxable income exceeds $500,000."

I won't argue either, but I will.

 

FICA as you know is supposed to fund our future retirement. Buffet would get the same benefits as his admin; hence he should put the same in, and I don't find it "ridiculous."

 

I guess if the gubment admits what you said above; "hey guys, it's really just another tax that goes into the general fund to fund all of this shiot, there won't be a dime of your money there when you retire," I'd at least appreciate their honesty.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I think the main point here shouldn't be so much people trying to side swipe a income decrease that doesn't exist, but rather the issue of people who will not grow their businesses if the payoff isn't worth the risk. That is my main problem with the Obama tax increases, and why I think they're counter productive

 

Lots of good stuff in this thread by the way

[JackARoot 2]

II guess if the gubment admits what you said above; "hey guys, it's really just another tax that goes into the general fund to fund all of this shiot, there won't be a dime of your money there when you retire," I'd at least appreciate their honesty.

 

 

I have to agree with this. It drives me nuts when they talk about the "crisis" in the SS system as though no one could see it coming. Let's take a closer look at what's been done (and Dems and Repubs both share the blame):

 

Let take all of the FICA contributions, pay out benefits to retirees, then spend the surpluss in the current budget. Nevermind the fact that we have a huge FICA surpluss at the moment and for the past 30 years, which will drop off as the baby-boomers begin to retire. Lets just spend all of the surpluss, and then act like its a crisis that couldn't have been avoided. Didn't anyone think that some of the baby-boomers contribution should have been saved for their retirement and avoid this "crisis". Jeez its focking stoopid.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I think the main point here shouldn't be so much people trying to side swipe a income decrease that doesn't exist, but rather the issue of people who will not grow their businesses if the payoff isn't worth the risk. That is my main problem with the Obama tax increases, and why I think they're counter productive

 

Lots of good stuff in this thread by the way

 

I don't get this mentality for a few reasons. First, the taxes will be lower than they were during the clinton years and things were booming then. I'm not saying thats definitive proof because that decade was unique and is very different than this decade and will be different from the next decade. My point is, with taxes at a higher level, businesses were able to succeed.

 

Secondly, its only a 3% increase. The numbers have already been discussed. If you make 500k, you will be taxed an additional $5500. Only a crazy person will say, i would've tried to grow my business, but now that i'll have to pay an extra 5-6k, it's not worth it. Even though, i will still have more disposable income in my pocket, the payoff, because of the extra 6k isn't worth it anymore.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

Secondly, its only a 3% increase. The numbers have already been discussed. If you make 500k, you will be taxed an additional $5500. Only a crazy person will say, i would've tried to grow my business, but now that i'll have to pay an extra 5-6k, it's not worth it. Even though, i will still have more disposable income in my pocket, the payoff, because of the extra 6k isn't worth it anymore.

 

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...s-budget-a.html