The National debt

[Mark Davis 446]

11 hours ago, MDC said:

I didn’t say they pay less. I said in many instances they pay a lower rate than the working class.

For example, when  he ran for POTUS, Romney’s effective tax rate was around 15%. Seems unfair to me that his income is charged at a lower rate than most working class people because it comes from capital gains and investments. FICA taxes are also incredibly regressive.

 

On extreme cases like Romney, Buffett, that ilk I agree.  The issue is when politicians discuss tax increases, and because they are increases they are mostly D's, they talk about the incremental rates.  You and I both know why, the donors and the politicians themselves want to act like they are addressing the issue via the tax brackets while not truly addressing why those people are paying a 15% for instance.  If Mitt Romney's effective rate is truly 15%, it's not because the top tax rate is 37% and needs to be higher.  Changing the brackets does nothing, and people across the entire political spectrum need to realize it, whether you are for more taxes or less taxes.

Social Security taxes are capped because benefits are capped.  Most high end earners won't recover their money anyway, but it seems to me unfair to tax those folks even more for no more benefits.  This goes back to the whole earned income and tax bracket question.  The reason removing the SS cap is so popular amongst the D politicians are that this has no impact on the ultra high net worth individuals.  Those folks aren't making much subject to SS earnings, the people making large salaries subject to the SS tax are already paying the highest rates across the board on that income.

[Hardcore troubadour 16,290]

Aren’t capital gains only taxed on the gains? 

[MDC 8,310]

27 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

On extreme cases like Romney, Buffett, that ilk I agree.  The issue is when politicians discuss tax increases, and because they are increases they are mostly D's, they talk about the incremental rates.  You and I both know why, the donors and the politicians themselves want to act like they are addressing the issue via the tax brackets while not truly addressing why those people are paying a 15% for instance.  If Mitt Romney's effective rate is truly 15%, it's not because the top tax rate is 37% and needs to be higher.  Changing the brackets does nothing, and people across the entire political spectrum need to realize it, whether you are for more taxes or less taxes.

Social Security taxes are capped because benefits are capped.  Most high end earners won't recover their money anyway, but it seems to me unfair to tax those folks even more for no more benefits.  This goes back to the whole earned income and tax bracket question.  The reason removing the SS cap is so popular amongst the D politicians are that this has no impact on the ultra high net worth individuals.  Those folks aren't making much subject to SS earnings, the people making large salaries subject to the SS tax are already paying the highest rates across the board on that income.

We’re in total agreement on your first paragraph. I’d be fine on a flat Tac across the board if it meant closing all the loopholes that allow Romney and Buffet types to pay a much lower rate than me. I’m right in that sweet spot where I make enough $ that I’m focked by taxes but not enough to hide my income.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,610]

10 minutes ago, MDC said:

We’re in total agreement on your first paragraph. I’d be fine on a flat Tac across the board if it meant closing all the loopholes that allow Romney and Buffet types to pay a much lower rate than me. I’m right in that sweet spot where I make enough $ that I’m focked by taxes but not enough to hide my income.

You can hide your income. It’s not that hard