CenterBHSFan;455554 wrote:What is "Other Mandatory" and "Other Discretionary" ?

Let's just say the illusive "other discretionary" category @ 12% would just about cover my 12% forced federally mandated "contribution" to SS and Medicare...right Boatshoes?

believer;455862 wrote:Let's just say the illusive "other discretionary" category @ 12% would just about cover my 12% forced federally mandated "contribution" to SS and Medicare...right Boatshoes?

Well that discretionary spending is about 50-60% made up of military spending so I'm okay with that.

I Wear Pants;455904 wrote:Well that discretionary spending is about 50-60% made up of military spending so I'm okay with that.

Uh no...look at that pie chart again. There's already a slice set aside for defense spending. The "discretionary" slice is for discretionary political nonsense. Let's cut that one out first THEN look at the other slices....including defense spending shall we?

I could probably shave 30% off that budget: Miltary 12% (we spend more than the next 15 countries COMBINED)...Discretionary 6%....TARP 4%...Entitlements 8% (15% cut in benefits)....total budget $2.5B, which would be close to a balanced budget.

Realistically, will be tough to cut entitlements....so raise FICA 15% (about 1% more out of your paycheck). Then, with a balanced budget, I go looking for another $250B in revenues (about 10% more) with a combination of small tax hikes, closing loopholes and trying to get all that overseas money brought back and taxed, then begin paying down the debt and in 20-25 years we're out of this mess.

Simply put, the pattern of buying votes with money we don't have has to stop. We're paying 5% in interest on debt, money that would go a long way toward sustaining SS and other entitlements.

gut;456809 wrote:I could probably shave 30% off that budget: Miltary 12% (we spend more than the next 15 countries COMBINED)...Discretionary 6%....TARP 4%...Entitlements 8% (15% cut in benefits)....total budget $2.5B, which would be close to a balanced budget.

Realistically, will be tough to cut entitlements....so raise FICA 15% (about 1% more out of your paycheck). Then, with a balanced budget, I go looking for another $250B in revenues (about 10% more) with a combination of small tax hikes, closing loopholes and trying to get all that overseas money brought back and taxed, then begin paying down the debt and in 20-25 years we're out of this mess.

Simply put, the pattern of buying votes with money we don't have has to stop. We're paying 5% in interest on debt, money that would go a long way toward sustaining SS and other entitlements.

This

we saw the effect of privatization of pensions when the great depression hit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-25/retiree-ponzi-scheme-is-16-trillion-short-laurence-kotlikoff.html


"But Social Security has also played a central role in the massive, six-decade Ponzi scheme known as U.S. fiscal policy, which transfers ever-larger sums from the young to the old.

In so doing, Uncle Sam has assured successive young contributors that they would have their turn, in retirement, to get back much more than they put in. But all chain letters end, and the U.S.’s is now collapsing.

The letter’s last purchasers -- today’s and tomorrow’s youngsters -- face enormous increases in taxes and cuts in benefits. This fiscal child abuse, which will turn the American dream into a nightmare, is best summarized by the $202 trillion fiscal gap discussed in my last column."

"Our nation is in terribly hot water. Business as usual is no answer. The only way to move ahead is to radically reform our retirement, tax, health-care and financial institutions to achieve much more for a lot less. "

But the liberals will continue to demagogue the issue -------- incredible. Their days are numbered, luckily.

QuakerOats;468468 wrote:Their days are numbered, luckily.

You can hardly pin this on liberals or the left. Both parties have had more than enough opportunity to do something about this, but have been happy to let it slide because they don't want to be the ones who take anything away from anybody.

FatHobbit;468494 wrote:You can hardly pin this on liberals or the left. Both parties have had more than enough opportunity to do something about this, but have been happy to let it slide because they don't want to be the ones who take anything away from anybody.

Yeah both parties are to blame for pushing the problems into the future, but the Dems are the ones lying in wait for even the slightest mention by a Republican of scaling back SS. Ask Barry Goldwater what happens when you campaign on reforming SS and being fiscally responsible. Scaling back SS is the equivalent of politcal suicide, and until the American people (young, old, and everyone in between) quit expecting a free lunch, the problems will keep getting swept under the rug.

Yeah, it's not like the Republicans are going to fix this problem either. We are pretty much screwed with our choices of politicians. I have a better chance of winning the lottery than a 3rd party candidate has of getting elected, so we might as well get used to the idea because it's not going to change any time soon.

The American people are never going to go for the idea. Seniors are never going to say, "Ok, I see the problem and you can go ahead and cut my benefits." It's not going to happen. They need to get rid of the SS for the younger folks and we will have to just wait until the boomers are all dead. That's about the only way change is going to happen. Until then, it's going to be a giant sink hole of debt.

tk421;468509 wrote:They need to get rid of the SS for the younger folks and we will have to just wait until the boomers are all dead. That's about the only way change is going to happen. Until then, it's going to be a giant sink hole of debt.

That's just great, but I have no intention of paying for a bunch of old geezers (no offense to them) when I would not be getting any of the benefits.

What I meant was the younger folks shouldn't have to pay the SS tax, since we will never see a single penny of that money. If the older folks want to receive their full benefits, tax them more.

Euthanize those over 75...problem solved.

Footwedge;468838 wrote:Euthanize those over 75...problem solved.

Glad you finally read ObamaKare.

Longevity tax. 10% for every year you live over 75.

tk421;468851 wrote:Longevity tax. 10% for every year you live over 75.

They already have it...it's called the Death Tax and it's 55% of everything you scrimped, saved, PAID TAXES ON ALREADY, your investments, and your money stored under the bed frame. Because people lived their life prudently, efficiently, invested wisely, PAID THEIR TAXES ON THEIR EARNINGS ALREADY, and had integrity, they are ordered to hand over 55% of all they created and saved. What's the reward for living right?...Fork it over to Uncle Sam because he deserves EVEN MORE FRUITS of your labor.

Of all the taxes levied on Americans, I hate this one the most. #2 isn't even close.

Yeah, but that only kicks in on estates over 2-3 million. I'd imagine not too many seniors have that much money.

Ooh, I have an idea. How about a 10% tax break for kids whose parents over the age of 75 die in a given year?







Kidding ............ slightly.

tk421;468879 wrote:Yeah, but that only kicks in on estates over 2-3 million. I'd imagine not too many seniors have that much money.

Au contraire. It's 0% for 2010 and 2010 only. On January 1, 2011, it reverts back to 2001 levels, or 55%. The exemption is only $1,000,000, not 2 or 3 million. Think a million is a lot? The Death Tax is levied against everything you own, including any small business, your house, your 401(K), your savings accounts, your pension funds, your life insurance, your car, and anything else with your name on it.

Think for a minute about what you own and how much it's worth. What if you put the max, 15% of your income into your 401(K) over 40 years, and it was worth a million dollars. Add in the value of your modest $250,000 home, your $500,000 of life insurance you paid for every month, your new Cadillac Escalade you bought as a retirement gift to yourself at $60,000, your savings account, and the jewelry you bought your spouse that is valued at $50,000. Go ahead...add it up. If you had $40,000 in savings, then it totals $1,900,000. Take out a million dollar exemption, then you owe 55% on $900,000 or $495,000 to Uncle Sam. That's terrible....no, it's theivery...grand larceny...a major felony.

Now think if you owned a small business instead of a 401(K) plan. Could you get that kind of cash out of it overnight to pay Uncle Sam. You know you can't unless you liquidate it to get the cash. Now you know why small business is so against the Death Tax, as am I.

BGFalcons82;468874 wrote:They already have it...it's called the Death Tax and it's 55% of everything you scrimped, saved, PAID TAXES ON ALREADY, your investments, and your money stored under the bed frame. Because people lived their life prudently, efficiently, invested wisely, PAID THEIR TAXES ON THEIR EARNINGS ALREADY, and had integrity, they are ordered to hand over 55% of all they created and saved. What's the reward for living right?...Fork it over to Uncle Sam because he deserves EVEN MORE FRUITS of your labor.

Of all the taxes levied on Americans, I hate this one the most. #2 isn't even close.

with proper estate planning, death taxes can be eliminated...at least at the federal level.

BGFalcons82;468905 wrote:Au contraire. It's 0% for 2010 and 2010 only. On January 1, 2011, it reverts back to 2001 levels, or 55%. The exemption is only $1,000,000, not 2 or 3 million. Think a million is a lot? The Death Tax is levied against everything you own, including any small business, your house, your 401(K), your savings accounts, your pension funds, your life insurance, your car, and anything else with your name on it.

Think for a minute about what you own and how much it's worth. What if you put the max, 15% of your income into your 401(K) over 40 years, and it was worth a million dollars. Add in the value of your modest $250,000 home, your $500,000 of life insurance you paid for every month, your new Cadillac Escalade you bought as a retirement gift to yourself at $60,000, your savings account, and the jewelry you bought your spouse that is valued at $50,000. Go ahead...add it up. If you had $40,000 in savings, then it totals $1,900,000. Take out a million dollar exemption, then you owe 55% on $900,000 or $495,000 to Uncle Sam. That's terrible....no, it's theivery...grand larceny...a major felony.

Now think if you owned a small business instead of a 401(K) plan. Could you get that kind of cash out of it overnight to pay Uncle Sam. You know you can't unless you liquidate it to get the cash. Now you know why small business is so against the Death Tax, as am I.

Obama is proposing a 3.5 million exemption...and then 45% estate tax over and above that. Republicans are suggesting 35% estate tax with a 5 million dollar exemption.

But again....gifting and trust funds will allow people to circumvent these taxes anyhow.

Footwedge;468919 wrote:with proper estate planning, death taxes can be eliminated...at least at the federal level.

What...with smart lawyers...tax accountants...personal investment advisors...blah blah blah gag. Why does it have to be so stinking hard? Why have this at all? Why tax the shit out of every decent American that lived right and saved right? Tell my why you think the federal government is owed money for investments and savings that have ALREADY BEEN TAXED AT LEAST ONCE?

Damn this gets my blood boiling....

BGFalcons82;468931 wrote:What...with smart lawyers...tax accountants...personal investment advisors...blah blah blah gag. Why does it have to be so stinking hard? Why have this at all? Why tax the shit out of every decent American that lived right and saved right? Tell my why you think the federal government is owed money for investments and savings that have ALREADY BEEN TAXED AT LEAST ONCE?

Damn this gets my blood boiling....

So...you are in support of an aristocracy? Let's be honest here....are you gonna "take it with you"? Moreover, can't the kids get by with 3,5 million clear? Or in the case of Steinbrenner, "only" 550 million for the kids? Or aren't the kids supposed to work hard and cut out there own financial niche in life? I understand that leaving some financial security behind equates to a job well done. But to suggest that kids should be left with everything is ridiculous.

You know...there is a national debt thingy to consider.

BGFalcons82;468905 wrote: Now think if you owned a small business instead of a 401(K) plan. Could you get that kind of cash out of it overnight to pay Uncle Sam. You know you can't unless you liquidate it to get the cash. Now you know why small business is so against the Death Tax, as am I.

I'm more irate that people enter the world with a huge "birth tax". The birth tax "inherited" by newborns is estimated to be around 40K is a hundred times worse than a man worth 50 million leaving "only" 27 million to the kids.