The GOP Plan is the Biggest Tax INCREASE in American History, By Far

yeah right

 

Many retirees move to Red States because it's less expensive to live there. The Left hates retirees and their Social Security checks, and apparently deeply resents their freedom of travel.

 

Well it would be interesting to see the Republicans propose a plan that actually would actual double SS and cut the deficit. Unfortunatly the current plan will increase the national debt, cut Medicare, and probably eventually require cutting SS.

The fact that the Republicans pretend that this tax bill is designed to help the middle class is a joke. Carried interest, eliminating the AMT, cutting corporate tax rates, and eliminating the inheritance tax can in no rational universe be claimed to be for the benefit of the middle class.

 

Nancy Palsi Confirms How Good Tax Bill Must Be; Calls it "the Worst Bill in the History of Congress"

 

They seem to hate everything they can't have, including but not limited to, jobs, your paycheck, your healthcare, a million dollars, retirement, independence....

 

No, I specifically was discussing the amount of revenue sent to the federal government compared to the resources that they take from the federal government.

If you confused me with someone else, that's understandable.

 

She's either senile or retarded, period, and shouldn't even be allowed to be in office anymore. She said Trump's healthcare would kill us all and she says his tax plan will be Armageddon.

 

PCR is senile. So, you're a fan of Alex Jones? Interesting.

 

My household will have our taxes INCREASED because, wait for it... we are far from what most would consider “poor”.

 

And because you're not "rich" enough to get 80% of the tax benefit like that which is afforded to the top 1%.

 

I wish you were correct, instead of just spouting the party issued talking points that work on most.

Back when my household made significantly less money then we do today, I would have welcomed this GOP tax plan with open arms. Now that the government considers us “rich”, this will at the very best, have us break even with the last years taxes.

If anything, this tax plan will encourage people like me to move to FL or TX so we can benefit. Easier said then done of course, but maybe one day.

I openly want tax cuts for everyone equally, especially the “evil rich”. I’m honest about it without being a walking robot who regurgitates the Nancy Pelosi talking point.

 

I'm questioning it. Let's chase this down your rabbit hole.... WHY is it "a terrible value"? Overhead is not excessive. Interest rates are low. And SS, which was intended to prevent dire senior poverty, is being collected by seniors who are in deep poverty, so SS isn't paying out enough in those cases and other forms of assistance have to take up the slack.

So, that said, WHY is it a terrible value?..... --What feature or aspect of it is responsible for it being "a terrible value"?

 

It is the salient point which you want to run away from. And yes if someone invests their capital into a business and you buy from them they make money, do you believe you are supposed to make the money on that transaction? Decide which end you want to be on. Make your labor more valuable. Put your capital to work and at risk.

 

I don't count inheritance as income.

 

Because it takes away the ability of voters in HIGH tax states to write off their State income tax and severely limits the amount of property tax they can write off too. There will be another tax revolt in California and I can hardly wait. I hope it happens while Jerry "Brown Streak high speed rail" Browndoggle is still in office, he presided as Governor back in the 1970's when the Prop 13 revolt took place.

 

Because it returns a pittance from a life time of contributions that should leave a person with a plentiful life during their golden years. Instead, the paltry fixed income that SS provides leaves many of the elderly working entry level jobs or on assistance. That is a pretty simple reason why it is a terrible value.

I fail to see how this matters when this is not even considered in a cost/benefit analysis. You pay in x dollars and receive x dollars later. What is the time value of money you receive during that span on the amount that was contributed? That is all that matters, and the amount you receive for that loan to the government for the average american is zero.

I get it. You prefer to live with meager monthly returns based on your false perception of SS stability. There are literally thousands of products that are available that do the same thing in the private market. I on the other hand would prefer to take less risk while also being compensated for my investment dollars and have the ability to add to my children's inheritance.

I understand that you think you are taking on more risk by allowing me a choice. I don't have a choice other than this farce because you want to send guns to my house if I refuse to support this defunct, valueless social program. Your fear is what politicians use to control the wealth creation of the middle and lower classes.

 

These clowns all lined up and swore that they would just LOVE to pay higher taxes, during the Bush Taxcut era.

Well, good news, now they get to!

 

No, I'm not a fan of Alex Jones.

You are really good with artwork and Gene Wilder, but come across as clueless on any discussion of meaning. Why do you think I'm a fan of Jones, and why do you think PCR is senile?

What on earth do you navigate through? So far all I'm seeing in your posts is meaningless nonsense and good pictures of Wilder.

 

You don't understand diversification and the importance of a fixed asset and guaranteed cash flow. And most people get more out of the system than they put in, unless a person is without a family and dies prematurely.

You are asking for features of equities when the subject is a fixed asset and guaranteed income of a defined benefit plan. You're mixing apples and oranges. And most of the time when a person opposes SS and how it works, this is the exact mistake they make.

No, you don't get it. You don't understand personal financial planning, but you think you do.

You're ranting because you feel frustrated, not understanding AND PROBABLY NOT WANTING TO UNDERSTAND, the financial aspects of this including but not limited to diversification, asset classes, and the differences between equities and fixed assets.

But you didn't give a straight answer to the one question that would zero in on your problem, and that is "what feature or aspect of it is responsible for it being "a terrible value"?

 

Libs love tax increases. 2027? You really think tax law won't be changed for 10 years? Because Dems refused to cooperate, they had to throw these things in to get a neutral CBO scoring, by the time they are scheduled to actually kick in, they will get delayed, postponed or changed.

 

We know that. The question is why?

 

Sorry but what is the salient point I want to run away from. Is it the fact that the Republican plan benefits the rich. Or is it the fact that it increases the deficit. OR is it the fact that it does nothing to actually simplify the tax code. Or is it the fact thst the taxes on the middle class will actually increase.

 

SAY WHAT YOU WILL, THE TRUMP ERA HAS BEEN ALL ABOUT REVEALED PREFERENCES: Liberal States That Like High Taxes Now Consider Lawsuit for Actually Having to Pay Them.



Suddenly against double taxation:

”We are looking at the legality now. This is double taxation. They are taxing the taxes,” said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on a conference call with California Gov. Jerry Brown and New Jersey Gov.-elect Phil Murphy, according to the New York Post.

Suddenly convinced high taxes hurt the economy:

”They’re hurting California, Massachusetts and New York, but they’re also hurting the United States. They’re attacking the vital sinews of the American economy. It’s really stupid,” Brown said

These are odd statements coming from liberal governors whose states impose incredibly high taxes of their own. They also belong to the same Democratic Party that didn't offer a single vote in favor of the GOP bill in the Senate to lower tax rates.

The state and local tax deductions encourage states to raise taxes higher than they normally would without it, leveraging the costs on the federal government.

“Faced with newly shouldering the entire burden of state and local taxes, taxpayers would markedly increase their opposition to state and local tax hikes,” writes Curtis Dubay, a tax and economic policy research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

The liberal governors' claims also run counter to their party's mantra of raising taxes on the wealthy to help the poor.

“A little less than 30 percent of Americans claimed the (state and local tax) deduction in 2014, and the beneficiaries tend to be wealthy — the Tax Policy Center estimates that nearly half of its benefits go to households with annual incomes over $200,000,” according to Quartz.

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017...high-taxes-now-consider-lawsuit-actually-pay/

 

A guaranteed cash flow from annuity, preferred stick, bonds, etc isn't required in an investment portfolio until closer to retirement. The reason 30 year olds aren't loaded up on coupon municipal bonds is because they have terrible returns. The volatility of other growth investments has time to level out. SS doesn't provide the option of portfolio evolution as you mature toward retirement. Currently, I have quite a bit of real estate investment, but that's highly leveraged and ss definitely doesn't allow that option, and I'm fairly sure any privatized version would not either.

You are misinterpreting my complaint. I want options that offer greater returns. The one size fits all terrible return annuity option doesn't stack up when compared to any fruit of your choice. You are trying to box in what it can be compared to when there's no reason to limit options.

I'll put it this way, I could retire at 40 and never need ss. I think I've got it figured out, and what I don't understand, my financial manager handles for me. I'm not arguing for me. After all, if Dems get their way, I'll be means tested out anyway. I saw SS for what it was 15 years ago and started planning ahead. I'm arguing for those that maybe only have 5% or less to invest after SS takes 12.4%. You're literally taking half a million in potential earnings from a median income earner.

The overall net return you receive when compared to other options makes it a terrible value. I can't make that any clearer.

 

Because it's not income.