WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! ![]() You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Happy Birthday Mr. President! | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 4 2011, 12:55 PM (384 Views) | |
| Zarquon Froods | Aug 5 2011, 12:44 PM Post #16 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is so true, the problem with incorporating is that it is such a tricky business. You have to have by-laws and articles of corporation and company officers and what not, but the benefit of removing liability from the individual is sometimes worth it. I would love (read: have passionate sex) with the idea of a flat tax that would do away with loopholes. This is why I like the idea of the Fair Tax so much, no one is immune from paying it so long as you buy from a legit market. We're using a system that is quickly approaching its 100th birthday and it is in serious need of an overhaul. But even then I still believe the economy has vastly outgrown our ability to raise capital without an income tax rate closer to 50% and even then that would only hold us over for maybe 40-50 years at the most if spending stays its course. |
![]() |
|
| Snefaldia | Aug 5 2011, 12:48 PM Post #17 |
|
No one's hotter than Bea.
![]()
|
Lack of regulation, anemic antitrust regulation, overseas flight, and neoliberal policies on free trade are what's killing jobs, not the EPA. Edit: A flat tax is always regressive. In fact, any tax that isn't progressive is regressive, because the poor will always be burdened more b paying anything that isn't scaled according to income. |
![]() |
|
| Krioval | Aug 5 2011, 02:16 PM Post #18 |
|
He Who Fights
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Lots of stuff to respond to! I'll do my best. @RWP: As long as the taxation structure is progressive - the millionth dollar is taxed more than the thousandth - I'm find with simplification. I continue to believe that if people want to incorporate a business to simulate personhood (without criminal responsibility), they should have to pay extra for the privilege. If I did what the financial "services" industries did, I would be in prison for at least the next 20 years. Corporate fines are a joke as they stand. Frankly, I'd be in favor of abolishing (most) corporate subsidies and (most) corporate taxes: let people pay income tax on the returns on their investments or the change in their net worth. Of course that comes with another wrinkle. I would say that any corporation committing the levels of fraud seen in the past five years should be divested or nationalized, and the officers in charge forced to bear at least some personal responsibility for their actions. @ZF: Maybe governments don't need to own and operate all of the things I mentioned, but they sure as hell should be regulating them on some level. Total unrestrained capitalism is leading to worldwide imbalances in standards of living and sending American jobs overseas. The solution is not to obliterate any and all labor standards in the U.S. but to refuse to sanction the deplorable working conditions in much of the rest of the world. This is where a good deal of my anti-corporate animus comes from: they are willing to sacrifice quality and safety in the pursuit of money, and this mission is a natural consequence of a corporation's identity. I don't think that it's appropriate to leave behind a manual laborer just because they didn't win the genetic or financial lottery at birth. Social Security serves a useful purpose as far as I'm concerned. Privatizing it would have been a disaster when the stock market crashed. I do agree that people should plan better for their retirements, though nature throws enough curveballs at people that even the best plans can disintegrate without notice. I'm definitely for people making better and more informed choices, but I also think that a lot of decent people make all the right choices but still manage to get screwed over - people are not always in control of their own destinies. @Snef: Pretty much in agreement. Also, a flat tax would actually tax people into poverty if they made enough money to be just over the line. I don't think that even the most ardent economic conservative would think that would be a good idea. |
![]() |
|
| artichokeville | Aug 5 2011, 04:07 PM Post #19 |
|
MASCOT-NAZI!!!!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Don't you guys have any national superannuation scheme? We have a thing where each pay-day your employer puts a certain amount into super for you, and they can deduct that from the amount they pay tax on. You can match it and your contribution isn't taxed as income, but even if you can't match it, the employer portion still accumulates, regardless of how many employers you have. When you retire at 65, it's yours, and it's still not taxed. (You can access it from 60 onwards.) Depending on your super and other assets, your old age pension is reduced, though you still get all the medical, transport and other "seniors" benefits. |
![]() |
|
| Snefaldia | Aug 5 2011, 04:32 PM Post #20 |
|
No one's hotter than Bea.
![]()
|
We have IRAs (the investment instrument, not the separatists group) and the 401k, they are roughly equivalent. I have a Roth IRA I try to make regular contributions to. I'm not that knowledgeable about the 401k. |
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | Aug 5 2011, 04:43 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Roth accounts are much safer than 401's. I forget how the 401k works, but it is tied to the stock markets. I know several people that have lost tens of thousands from their 401's when the market dived in 2008. Roth accounts maintain as long as you keep putting money in it. Personally I have neither, because I don't make enough to actively contribute and my employer does not offer any sort of matching. I have to rely on what I can manage to save until I find another job. |
![]() |
|
| artichokeville | Aug 5 2011, 05:17 PM Post #22 |
|
MASCOT-NAZI!!!!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah. The thing I'm talking about, you can't escape having. If you work, your employer has to do it, and when you retire, you have to get it, even if you've never been paid enough to contribute anything. And it's a figure you can plan for, not a varying one depending on stocks and shares. The catch is, of course, you have to have had a job, at least a "permanent casual" job, to get any. |
![]() |
|
| Snefaldia | Aug 5 2011, 05:17 PM Post #23 |
|
No one's hotter than Bea.
![]()
|
I would encourage you to get a Roth. I started with an initial contribution when I opened mine and one contribution in 2006, but since then I haven't been able to put anything in, but I feel it's better to have that investment ready and going for me for when I am able to make regular contributions. Ideally I could do a monthly contribution in addition to my loan payments, especially while I'm living at home rent-free. Even that nest egg I have will continue to develop... unless of course the bonds, securities, and mutuals in my portfolio all go belly-up. <_< This is a bit off topic, though, so, yes, 401k are tied to the market and depend on investment, so in some ways they can be as unreliable as traditional company pensions. Incidentally: "More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges." We're fucked.
|
![]() |
|
| Kenny | Aug 5 2011, 05:24 PM Post #24 |
|
King of California
![]()
|
Alright, what I posted before, and quickly deleted, because I thought I misread your post, is that FICA/SSA (Social Security) sounds similar to what you're talking about. It's taken out of every paycheck, it counts as credit against your income taxes, and you get it back in small chunks once you retire or apply for federal disability benefits. "Social Security" means other things in other countries, but here it's a mandatory federal pension program. |
![]() |
|
| The Evil Smurfs | Aug 5 2011, 07:05 PM Post #25 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Um. There's not enough money there. We're spending trillions every year. There ain't enough millionaires to pay for that. |
![]() |
|
| Zarquon Froods | Aug 6 2011, 04:03 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Steamaholic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That sounds more like the unemployment insurance we have here if the employee isn't paying for it directly. Social Security comes out of your pay like a tax then you can begin drawing at 65, or 62 with a penalty. But it is taxed when you get it.
Not just yet. Consider this foreplay. There's still a chance we can slip out of the room in our skivvies and dart down the hallway before any of the neighbors think anything of it. But there's going to need to be a massive shift if fiscal policy lest it should drop again in 2 years time. |
![]() |
|
| Krioval | Aug 6 2011, 03:20 PM Post #27 |
|
He Who Fights
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So let's not do anything because it won't close the deficit entirely on its own? We need to raise government revenue to get out of the recession and to repair critical infrastructure. |
![]() |
|
| The Evil Smurfs | Aug 6 2011, 07:06 PM Post #28 |
|
Blue Nazi Devil
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Here's a shocking idea to reduce the deficit: cut spending. Rattling the class warfare sabres is old and tired, and pretending that if we just jacked up taxes on those horrible rich people we'd solve all our problems isn't just intellectually dishonest, it's outright lying. Raising taxes on business is fucking stupid, and anyone's who's taken even high school economics should know that. Business don't pay corporate taxes: their customers do. We can't tax our way out of this problem. Washington needs to stop spending so much fucking money. I mean, seriously. 239 billion spent in one day? Come on. They aren't even trying. That's not their money. It's ours and they're fucking burning it. |
![]() |
|
| Snefaldia | Aug 6 2011, 07:45 PM Post #29 |
|
No one's hotter than Bea.
![]()
|
Of course we need to cut spending, but revenue increases have to be part of the package. The US spends more on military spending than the next ten countries combined- let's cut some of that shit. Absolutely expenses need to come down, and I would support a reorganization of Federal entitlements like Medicare and SS if the alternatives weren't just rightist "cut it all and let god sort 'em out." The inability to touch the sacred cows of both parties is going to ruin us. But this kneejerk "class warfare" shouting is a straw man, and I really hate when it's thrown about. France 1792 was class warfare. Russia 1917 was class warfare. Calling for an increase in the tax burden on the very richest in the country is absolutely not the same as murdering them and seizing their assets. I am not a communist and I don't believe in wealth distribution, but you can bet if there aren't serious attempts to reorient the tax structure and make deep cuts, the poor and lower-middle classes will only see their paychecks and then we're looking at really class warfare. |
![]() |
|
| Kenny | Aug 6 2011, 09:11 PM Post #30 |
|
King of California
![]()
|
Perhaps you missed the part where we are the ones who really pay for the tax increases? Not to mention the folly of assuming that Washington will raise taxes, ostensibly to pay off the debt, and not end up using it all on more wasteful spending. :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |

WELCOME TO AO, MORTAL!! 



![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





11:27 AM Jul 11