Unconscionable” tax bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shakuhachi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
upant said:
why should the rest of the country subsidize you for living in new york city
Click to expand...
Fair question. Here’s another fair question:

Why should I subsidize (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars each year) the billionaire heir to a real estate fortune?

Cite
 
I don’t know if low population is a good argument as 70% of the Senate represents only 30% of the population. Just sayin’
 
The more I think about it, SS might have been better set up as an annuity, where the beneficiary selects type of investment. But a lot of advisers discourage annuities due to the high commissions and other fees. But then the government bureaucracies do worse
 
ProVobis said:
The more I think about it, SS might have been better set up as an annuity, where the beneficiary selects type of investment. But a lot of advisers discourage annuities due to the high commissions and other fees. But then the government bureaucracies do worse
Click to expand...
And the politicians vote to take the money and spend it on other things
 
In light of the Republican version of tax reform, the tax plan that I would like to see is the one that returns the bulk of tax revenue to each state from where it was collected. The Federal government would keep enough revenue to fund national security; the State Department to conduct foreign affairs; the Justice Department to enforce the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; and a Department of Transportation and Interstate Commerce to maintain interstate highways and waterways, and to regulate civil aeronautics, and interstate commerce - involving anything moved from one state to another by any means including pipeline.

Everything else each state would fund and regulate according to the mandate of the citizens of the state and the financial ability of the state government based on the revenue collected from each state and subsequently returned by the Federal government. Maybe states could form voluntary cooperatives to address healthcare, pension funds, and other benefits that are valued by citizens and that would benefit from scale. I could see CA and WA States doing that because there is consensus in those two states regarding healthcare and pension funds.

Republicans should jump on the band wagon for such a tax plan. After all, it would validate two ideas dear to Republican hearts - local control and the elimination of the redistribution of wealth (I.e., that which occurs when the Federal government collects considerably more tax revenue from one state than it returns to the state in benefits - but instead redistributes some of the revenue to other states).
 
Last edited:
If you collect wages for over 35 years, it is guaranteed that you will not collect benefits for the 36th year yet your paycheck will be deducted for the SS anyway.
 
Can you name me one insurance contract that one can get without paying for it? Can you name one insurance contract where married people with a non working spouse get higher benefits? SS has nothing in common with an insurance contract, starting with the fact that there is no contract.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Can you name me one insurance contract that one can get without paying for it? Can you name one insurance contract where married people with a non working spouse get higher benefits? SS has nothing in common with an insurance contract, starting with the fact that there is no contract.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of recipients pay for it for decades, unlike welfare.
The vast majority of spouses earn it, too.
Again, name me a welfare program that requires you to pay in for decades. Name me one where you can’t collect until 65.
WIC?
AFDC?
Food Stamps.?
 
Inisfallen said:
40.png
upant:
you don’t think you already are under the current scheme?
Click to expand...
I do think I am, of course. But I’ll be subsidizing him and others even more under the new tax scheme.
Click to expand...
but hopefully with less of your money; at least until 2017
 
Oh, they’ve been beating up on Kansas now for years.

Of course, they won’t mention North Dakota, Utah or Texas for obvious reasons…or Reagen.

Better get that excuse-machine ready to rock!
 
Ender said:
Given that the church is silent on these matters it would probably be a good thing if the bishops were too since
Click to expand...
The bishops speak for the Church in such matters. This dichotomy shows a misunderstanding of what the Church is. The Pope cannot go around addressing every matter in every nation. That is passed on through apostolic succession to the local bishops.
 
HCTC said:
… when the Federal government collects considerably more tax revenue from one state than it returns to the state in benefits.
Click to expand...
Is not that the root cause of our massive national debt? Our 535 congressional representatives run their re-election campaign in large part on the platform that they got more back from the federal government than their state constituents paid into the federal coffers. Now that platform, one would think, is impossible for every state’s elected reps as mathematically some states must have a negative balance. But wait, if we borrow massive amounts from China to fund the goodies for constituents then all 535 can run on that same platform.
 
There were some losers under Reagan too, most notably those with early retirement plans or who averaged their incomes.
 
The Church, sure. A bunch of people who happen to be bishops? Nah.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top