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

So there's no point in analyzing any law since it could just change in the future.

 

It provides guidance, but its merely a projection. It's not uncommon for CBO to miss and wildly so.

 

There are several projections all noting that this will add at least a trillion to the deficit and that the vast majority of the benefit goes to the top 1%.

But you want to ignore all of them because the law could change in the future.

 

Since income is defined as money recieved there is no question that inheritance is income.

 

What I said before.
Almost everyone benefits, like with any such change their will be a very few special circumstances.
The deficits will be depended on spending too but with the increased economic growth they can be cut AGAIN like when we had surpluses and paltry $161B deficits. Even the projection here is for $1,400B over ten years, under Democrat policies they didbthat in just ONE year.
And middle class taxes go down under this plan.

 

There is no diversification in SS and no guarantied income or return. It is all at the whim of the government. Are you saying you oppose means testing of SS? If SS is this great retirement program tben let people decide if they want to participate or not.

 

I've only been able to itemize once in my life and come out ahead of the standard deduction -- that was way back when folk were picking up receipts out of the Winn-Dixie parking lot to substantiate a bigger sales tax deduction. We had massive cancer medical bills that year, but most of that has been taken away already with the high threshold imposed should we need it again. Now with a doubling of the standard deduction we're really going to benefit.

 

You left out doubling the standard deduction which most take and lowering their rates. Why did yiu do that?

 

So you want to cut benefits to the poor to make it equal? SS to retirees? All to protect tax breaks to the rich?

 

Fair point. That's why all the heartburn about what's permanent and what isn't is silly. What it does do though is make it a painful political exercise to let cuts expire. It's human nature to demand our goodies, the party that lets the cuts expire does so at their peril. I'm outta here out of town a few days. Have a nice weekend Mr T.

 

Definition of disproportionate

: being out of proportion a disproportionate share

Are you denying blacks nationwide are dispropotionately poorer and disproportionately live in the Southern red states?

So you are saying you want to cut their benefits to make it even with the weathtier whiter state?

 

Tax increases have to be progressive, tax cuts can't even be flat or regressive, they have to be equal in dollar terms.

Typical redistributive nonsense from the left.

 

The simple reason is that people at the top are more successful.

 

Negative, income should be money that hasn't been previously taxed as income.

 

...dude

Please don't try to make strawmans.

 

And a guaranteed cash flow from SS is provided, mainly, during retirement. So?

You use the term wrongly. You don't know what "volatility" is.

"Evolution"? Your lack of understanding of terminology indicates your lack of general understanding. That is why we have trained, experienced, professionals designing and managing programs for us, like SS.

Real estate is an equity asset.

You want greater returns in everything you invest in, right? This is another indication of your lack of knowledge. Many people have put all their investment eggs in one basket, -their home. They never saw real estate fall in price and their home was all they could afford regarding investment. And then they were tricked and manipulated by banksters, or they had an unanticipated illness that wasn't covered by insurance, and they redirected all their income they could into medical costs, and they missed a house payment, and the bank took their home. Now, facing retirement or medical care needs, all they have is SS for income. Luck wasn't with them. Their plan had flaws: no diversification in addition to the problem of inadequate income to allow them to invest differently.

You're not in that boat, but their plight illustrates the errors in your own plan and your wish for yourself and all of us to have no guaranteed floor to your retirement income. And make no mistake, that is exactly what you are saying: NO guaranteed floor.

You're not communicating effectively. "Fruit of your choice"? That is vague. "One size fits all"? That is also vague. "Box in what it can be compared to"? More vague language.

Actually, by asking for no fixed assets and no floor under your retirement income, it is you who is advocating a "one size fits all" strategy.

Dems have never suggested that. They know it would mean a rewriting of SS, and that would open the door to undermining it long-term.

Your situation is not that of everyone. So you cannot base a proposal for a national plan to prevent a total lack of any income in retirement on your situation. A minimal income guarantee as a "safety net" is a good and appropriate thing. How would you provide such a guarantee? Or do you feel that everyone should just be left on their own to provide for their own retirement? What needs do you see and how would you address them?

There's that false 12.4% again. How old are you?

Oh! You're clear! Don't worry about that! You don't even seem to realize that using the term "return" or "net return", when discussing SS, is entirely inappropriate as it is to discuss tensile strength in connection with weather.

A minimal income guarantee as a "safety net" is a good and appropriate thing. How would you provide such a guarantee? Or do you feel that everyone should just be left on their own to provide for their own retirement? What minimal need do you see for a guaranteed floor, and how would you address it if you do?

 

Check SS law. You too are discussing SS as though it were an investment and "should" seek maximum "returns". And there is no "whim" involved unless there are changes in the law.

 

When you sell an item without profiting, you receive money, but you owe no taxes? Charitable gifts are not taxed? Are you saying that someone profits from an exchange of assets without a sales price? Do you get to claim previous property taxes as a loss against this profit? Do you get to consider acquisition costs? Improvement costs? What if the assets are fully depreciated, but still hold market value? Why isn't this treated as capital gains if it is in fact income?

IMO, assets moving from one individual to another does not create productivity, wealth or profit unless there is a mutual exchange/benefit. In the case of inheritance, it is a gift from one individual to another with all future productivity subject to tax. Other than my belief that this does not constitute taxable income, another reason for objecting to this tax is due to a lack of liquidity in small businesses forcing the sale of business assets which are consumed by larger entities which is contradictory to the supposed motive of this tax.

 

Tell that toto the people the Democrats and the left now want to means test. So you support means testing? And yes like any retirement system it should seek returns in order to help fund itself and the persons who contribute should see returns on their contributions.

 

Flat wrong
"How many times during the recent debate over Social Security reform have you heard someone refer to Social Security’s “guaranteed benefit”? The AARP says “Social Security is the guaranteed part of your retirement plan.” Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, touts the system’s “guaranteed retirement benefit.” The liberal activist group ProtectYourCheck.org, headed by former Clinton chief of staff Harold Ickes, is running ads calling Social Security “a guarantee you earned.”

But Social Security benefits are not guaranteed.

They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time."
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/social-securitys-sham-guarantee

 

You miss the 30 years of growth from a better retirement instrument while you are not preparing to retire.

Nope. I understand just fine what volatility means. I think you are being purposefully obtuse considering the common knowledge around this subject.

Experienced, trained politicians fleecing us working against our best interest due to willing sheep like you. Also, do you really not understand how a portfolio changes to mitigate value fluctuations as you near retirement? I think you may not be smart enough to understand this subject.

OK.

LOL, I am starting to think you are trolling or are completely ignorant, but have too much confidence. Diversification is opposite of all eggs in one basket. Diversified growth emphasis is different from fixed income distribution vehicles. "Tricked and manipulated by banksters" is laughable. Don't bring that crap to a factual discussion. It just shows your true progressive bias in trusing Someone not having medical, life, short/long term disability is completely out of scope. Additionally, you are saying that while these people faced hardships, the government held potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars that should have been theirs, and you feel that is a better option. Their plight illustrates that when you confiscate 12.4% of a person's income, they are much closer to falling below the break even point. Perhaps we should allow people to choose what to do with their money without making the assumption that they are too stupid to make choices.

You accused me of comparing apples and oranges, and I am saying that it doesn't matter. Do I really need to explain these simple terms to you? I didn't say no fixed assets. I didn't restrict anything. I am simply requesting the ability to choose. Why is personal choice so foreign to you?

They have supported means testing and pushed it numerous times in the past. Why are you lying? This entire post is a very weak attempt to play stupid, conflate, misinterpret and ultimately equals a complete fail on your part.

I support everyone on their own, but I can see several improvements that would allow better returns while guaranteeing a fixed income upon retirement. I could see less cost, higher income and assets that can be left to beneficiaries. At the very least, there needs to be an option. You can either choose plan A or plan B where B offers more choice in retirement vehicles.

12.4% is accurate. Sorry you can't comprehend addition.

Do people save for their retirement without the government? Is there thousands of options that can guarantee a fixed income at retirement? I am pretty sure you do not see this as anyone's income but a collective pool. This would explain your unwillingness to discuss a return on contributions. You believe it ceases to be the individuals asset which is my entire point. The government is confiscating 12.4% of a persons lifetime of income to maintain dependence. Lol, thanks for the insight. I always like to understand more about those that are so willing to accept so much less than even a moderate level of potential. However, I have confidence in my fellow citizens to make decisions in their own best interest to achieve a much better outcome than if they were to depend upon a central authority. People should have a choice with SS. I will continue to see it as theft.

 

I think you are in the majority, but I'm going to lose about 18k in deductions, and I live in TN (almost zero deductible taxes).

 

I have not heard anyone advocating means testing except for right wing hysteria websites and false "news". It's a scare tactic.

No, I support raising the income cap on taxation.

TOTALLY inappropriate. That would convert it to a personal account for Wall Street to profit from, and convert (most importantly) a guaranteed income floor to a gamble. That is an incorrect arrangement for SS and any guaranteed income floor.

 

When have they been denied? This is just another right wing scare tactic and it's BS.

Except that SS is a fully funded program, funded by those who will be receiving the benefits. So the differences are basic and huge.

CATO!!!! The most right wing think tank spewing BS! No surprise!! And Congress has never suggested elimination of SS. Only the right wing scare machine has spewed that sky is falling.

Stop quoting right wing BS and use reliable data for a change.

 

That's up to you to deal with outside of SS. What part of "guaranteed floor" don't you understand?

That's nothing more than right wing scare tactics. Professionals are needed. You don't know what they do.

That's the second personal attack in this post. You need to stop that pronto. I was trained in asset classes, securities law, insurance and law governing it, the various types of trusts, and all else needed as a financial planner and the licensing required. So cool your jets youngster. From what you've said I believe you're in your 40s. I'm 25 to 30 years your senior, so don't doubt my experience.

That's three.

Are you saying that there were no tricks, no tiny print on mortgage application which referenced another document that was not provided and if mentioned was just brushed off as "legalese boilerplate"? Are you saying that no loan officer who screwed people has ever come forward with confessions of what happened in that time and what he was required to do? Are you saying that banksters didn't devise derivatives" to bet against the very loans they were putting in place in order to clean up when those loans failed?

Try making that intelligible. It's gibberish.

Are you being vague and obscure in order to avoid a challenge? WHAT the HELL are you talking about?

Your eager readiness to quote 12.4% when half of that is only, eventually, theirs if they collect SS, is revealing. It reveals your desperation.

We are talking about SS. My understanding of what you're advocating is "no fixed assets for investing assets in the SS Trust Fund since better-performing alternatives exist".

Why are you being so confrontative? You HAVE personal choice with your own savings. Go for it!

LINK!!

You wrote it!

But you don't know enough about this to make sound recommendations.

Would that require converting SS to personal accounts?

That's four. You're on thin ice here.

Half of that 12.4% is only yours if and when you collect SS. It otherwise belongs to your employer. And if corporations no longer had to pay it, they would do what they did when they moved production overseas and saved on labor: they would pocket it. They have no reason to do otherwise. You would never see it. So it isn't really yours. Yours is 6.2%.

I see the difference between converting assets to a guaranteed asset at retirement (which would mean annuitizing an annuity typically, and which I do not recommend unless the person's specific situation indicates it), and owning a fixed asset prior to retirement, and having a guaranteed floor under you in retirement. THREE different things with different characteristics and different applications.

Saying that reveals your failure to understand what I've said, which is that a discussion or returns is entirely inappropriate to the discussion of any guaranteed floor. That idea makes no sense to you, right?

Right. FICA is a tax. And you have a SS account which you receive a report on annually.

No on all counts. Your insistence on repeating incorrect statements in spite of being corrected and without challenging the corrections to show them wrong, reveals your problem.

And you still are afraid to answer whether you think a guaranteed floor of a minimum income is needed and appropriate, and if so, how that would be provided in your world.[/QUOTE]