Conservatives want to raise taxes and kill SS and Medicare

Flash said:
The S&P 500 is not risky in the long-run. Take any year after about 1950 and ten years later it has gained. It goes up and down, but still results in a larger lump sum than would pay more than SS averaging about 10% a year. You don't have to be good at it to buy an index fund. Keep the money in that fund after retirement and it continues to grow even after withdrawing living expenses.

The latest trustee report says by 2035 the system will be able to prove 80% of benefits, so only a 20% shortfall.

The Republicans had a majority in House and Senate and president on several occasions. If they have wanted to end those programs so long why didn't they attempt it? Bush did not try to end SS. They did not end or reduce spending in any program.
Click to expand...

No, the S&P is not risky (riskier than US bonds, however). But you can't force people to invest in the S&P. And you certainly can't let the government play in private markets. I can't imagine a worse idea. If you let people decide what to invest in, they are going to gamble. And lose. Bitcoin. Gamestop. High risk investments. Sorry, but privatization is a recipe for complete disaster. The tigers are licking their chops.
 
Concart said:
No, the S&P is not risky (riskier than US bonds, however). But you can't force people to invest in the S&P. And you certainly can't let the government play in private markets. I can't imagine a worse idea. If you let people decide what to invest in, they are going to gamble. And lose. Bitcoin. Gamestop. High risk investments. Sorry, but privatization is a recipe for complete disaster. The tigers are licking their chops.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Just as people must pay the 6.2% SS tax matched by their employer, that money would still be paid and go into approved mutual funds of the S&P 500 index fund. That is like a 401(k) or 403(b) currently used. People don't decide what to invest in aside from perhaps choosing the mutual fund family.

The government is not playing in the market other than sending the contributions to the designated fund. Or, to eliminate all risks, have those contributions purchase treasury bonds. Everything about that is better than the current system. The problem is we can't let people contribute to those accounts because their contributions are needed for current benefits. This system is used by many state, school, city and private employers.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
30%.......now if you file a bill in the House proposing a 23% sales tax, what is the percent sales tax are you proposing?.....
Click to expand...

Under the bill introduced in the House it would be 23% in 2025.

After 2025 it would be (1) 14.91% plus the (2) old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate, and (3) the hospital insurance rate.

I have read that McCarthy will allow the House to vote on this bill as part of the deal to elect him speaker.
 
Flash said:
Under the bill introduced in the House it would be 23% in 2025.

After 2025 it would be (1) 14.91% plus the (2) old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate, and (3) the hospital insurance rate.

I have read that McCarthy will allow the House to vote on this bill as part of the deal to elect him speaker.
Click to expand...

so we all agree that the 30% was a lie......now, tell us what's wrong with voting on a proposed bill.......isn't that how government works in a democracy?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so we all agree that the 30% was a lie......now, tell us what's wrong with voting on a proposed bill.......isn't that how government works in a democracy?.......
Click to expand...

No, it isn't a lie. It is called 30% because it would add 30% to the pretax price. But the tax is 23% of the total cost of the product including the tax.

I didn't hear anybody say it was wrong to vote on it. But it is a waste of time since it has no chance of passing.

Also, in a democracy the members should decide if there will be a vote. We shouldn't be voting on a bill because of a deal made with a group knowing it can't pass.
 
"William Gale of the Brookings Institute has noted that it isn’t accurate to refer to the Fair Tax as 23%. He indicates that the rate is actually 30%. Fair Tax defines the sales tax as "$0.23 out of every dollar spent," which means that a $0.23 tax is added to every $0.77, not to every dollar."

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-is-the-fair-tax-plan-pros-cons-effect-3305765
 
Flash said:
No, it isn't a lie. It is called 30% because it would add 30% to the pretax price. But the tax is 23% of the total cost of the product including the tax.
Click to expand...
so instead of a lie its just something somebody made up based on idle speculation and then stated as if it were a fact.......okay......

Also, in a democracy the members should decide if there will be a vote.
Click to expand...
get serious.......in this country the speaker of the house has always decided if and when there will be a vote on anything.......you know that, I know that, everybody knows that.......
 
Flash said:
"William Gale of the Brookings Institute has noted that it isn’t accurate to refer to the Fair Tax as 23%. He indicates that the rate is actually 30%. Fair Tax defines the sales tax as "$0.23 out of every dollar spent," which means that a $0.23 tax is added to every $0.77, not to every dollar."

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/what-is-the-fair-tax-plan-pros-cons-effect-3305765
Click to expand...

stupid statement......it is what it is.....a 23% tax on what is spent........when I go to the store now they don't say the 6% sales tax is calculated on every 94 cents......if you want to say it reduces purchasing power you are right......but its pure propaganda to call it a 30% tax.......under your logic the next person would have to make the argument that its really a 38% tax because its on every 70 cents spent......
 
LV426 said:
Because everything Conservatism touches dies, the GOP majority in the House now wants to establish a 30% national sales tax.

Every single Conservative wants to raise your taxes and take away your entitlements.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1616118423704010752
Click to expand...

McCarthy isn't proposing it exactly. He has said he will allow the proposal, which comes from another GOP member, to get a floor vote. Republicans like a fat national sales tax because it will shift a bigger tax burden onto ordinary Americans and give wealthy Americans the financial assistance they so badly need.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
stupid statement......it is what it is.....a 23% tax on what is spent........when I go to the store now they don't say the 6% sales tax is calculated on every 94 cents......if you want to say it reduces purchasing power you are right......but its pure propaganda to call it a 30% tax.......under your logic the next person would have to make the argument that its really a 38% tax because its on every 70 cents spent......
Click to expand...

You already agreed that if you buy an item for $100 and pay a total of $130 with the tax, it is a 30% tax. The Fair Tax people claim that same $130 equals a 23% tax.

Any propaganda is coming from the Fair Tax people who want to hide the fact that they need to impose a 30% tax to equal the same amount of revenue currently raised by the income tax, payroll tax, gift, and estate tax.

If your state sales tax is 6% and you purchase a $1000 item, the sales tax is 60$ for $160 total. The Fair Tax people would claim it is a 37.5% sales tax.
 
Flash said:
You already agreed that if you buy an item for $100 and pay a total of $130 with the tax, it is a 30% tax. The Fair Tax people claim that same $130 equals a 23% tax.

Any propaganda is coming from the Fair Tax people who want to hide the fact that they need to impose a 30% tax to equal the same amount of revenue currently raised by the income tax, payroll tax, gift, and estate tax.

If your state sales tax is 6% and you purchase a $1000 item, the sales tax is 60$ for $160 total. The Fair Tax people would claim it is a 37.5% sales tax.
Click to expand...

your posts are really stupid today......sorry, can't help you......
 
Yakuda said:
Its not the only possible solution you dimwitted donkey dick sucking maggot. A national sales tax would result in EVERYONE paying taxes but you lying pieces of shit hate that. Go fuck yourself Cinderella
Click to expand...

There is a reason that taxes on Investment Income are lower than taxes on Wages and that reason is 'the rich make most of their money, typically, on Investment Income'. It makes far more sense to tax Investment Income higher as there is no labour component and its just making money with money, but the rich have to get their breaks so they can pay less, percent wise than EVERYONE else.

And there is a reason now, they want to move to this National Sales tax. That is because the vast majority of MC income goes to spending on things that would be captured by this National Sales tax. Whereas as only a tiny minority of the Wealthy's income goes to spending on things that would be captured by this National Sales tax. So while a MC and below person may end up consumer spending ~80% of their income on things that are taxed 30%, the super wealthy might spend less than 1% of their income and that would be taxed at 30%.

A great win for the uber rich, if they can get it. Yet another shift of the countries tax burden to the MC and below while letting the uber rich pay less taxes as a percentage than EVERYONE else, all the while right leaning Derps applaud it like seals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top