Not that I think that many of you are voting for Hillary, but here's some thoughts on what she might do to taxes. Not sure about you guys, but I have dividend income and would also be impacted by the FICA increases, etc.

Hillary and taxes

The only real issue I have with what he says is this:

Regardless of what you may think of Social Security, it is FAR from a fair tax.

He doesn't mention that anyone making $97,000 will STILL only pay $12,125. How many people make more than $97,000? Very few.

Much like the estate tax, they prey on people's fears: "Look at the DEATH TAX!!" Even though VERY few people are affected by it.

(I'm not arguing whether there should be an estate tax or not - just that they are VERY misleading when they argue about it.)

Combined tax, whole family, or each individual?

If its combined income then I would have an issue.

More than you think.

Yeah - they set their thresholds for who is "wealthy" pretty low... I'm well under the 97k mark by myself - but if I had a wife (and that wife had a job) we'd be over for sure.

I think they ought to move all of those "rich guy" thresholds up to 200k or more.

It's per individual, not household. Social Security tax has never been based on more than a single individual.

And a lot less than you think.

We aren't talking households. We're talking individuals.

5.63% of age 25+ individuals have incomes exceeding $100k. That's millions of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

10,000,000. Funny how they don't mention those under 25 - there are a LOT of people under 25 earning money.

95% of people aged 25+ DON'T have incomes exceeding $100k

That's millions more than you're talking about.

Who gives a shit about those poor fuckers?

I doubt we'll see another fiscal conservative in the WH for a long time. Not with so many hands outstreched and so many politicians willing to feed them.

I hope the Reps put forth an electable candidate. I know the Dems won't, at least for me. I'm not looking for any handouts, but am lucky to have good friends that have helped me out more than once. I wish I could elect one of them, but wouldn't want to curse them with that kind of responsibility.

There are not as many hands outstretched as you think or as the media would like people to believe.

The American people are not clamoring for socialism or an expansion of the government entitlement systems. That is being pushed on the people by a few political elites and many in the media.

If there were a Democrat administration with a willing Democrat congress, they will do enough damage to this country and the wallets of the taxpayers that their hold on power will not last very long.

So you're saying it's OK to tax the shit out of people making over $100k because there's not as many of them?

You're like Hillary with an Xterra and a busier vagina.

Actually people who make $97,000 or more a year are in the top 20%.

That means 20% of tax filers are earning at least that amount.

Hillary's other ideas on taxation are disastrous. If she raises the capital gains tax and increases corporate taxation, the economy will go in the tank.

The US already has the second highest corporate tax rate among developed countries. Other countries have lowered their rate to lure business, and it looks like it is working. A capital gains tax increase will drive investors away from the US economy.

Congressional Democrats are discussing taxing capital gains the same as income.

Uh no. Look at the figures that were posted by Desert Rat. 5.63%. Not 20%. Maybe 20% of the WEALTH. But not 20% of the FILERS.

Besides...we aren't talking about income tax. We're talking about Social Security - which is NOT a fair tax in the least (regardless of whether you like SS or not).

While that may not be entirely wrong, there are about 12-30 Million Illegals that would prove otherwise if they were legalised and were able to claim they are at the federal poverty level or upwards of 350% to get state entitlements.

Univision and its owner is expressly trying to recruit illegals for Dems. Not Good.

I'm aware of Univision's activities. I'm also aware that the the guy that runs Univision is a big friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

I'm also aware that Univision's activities are most likely illegal under federal law. But, since when did that stop Democrats.

You're comment about the 350% of federal poverty level is most likely referring to the current S-CHIP debate. I got news for you. The illegal aliens don't have to be legalized in order to be eligible under the Democrats plan to expand the S-CHIP program.

My remark still stands. Americans don't want socialism. They don't even want illegal aliens. They certainly don't want illegal aliens being used to institute a stealth version of socialism.

This is not being explained to the public by either the media or politicians.

I don't know where the figures come from, but there are more than 5.6% of taxpayers earning more than $97,000 a year.

Quote:

Besides...we aren't talking about income tax. We're talking about Social Security - which is NOT a fair tax in the least (regardless of whether you like SS or not).

When you are talking about SS taxes, you are basically talking about a payroll tax based on income. Half paid by you and half paid by the employer.

I have my own opinions of the payroll taxes like social security, but what do you mean by it not being fair? Not fair to whom?

I'm over 6 figures by myself, if I add the wife's income, the family is WAY over....$97K a yr for one guy is nothing any more.

IE: I'd like lower taxes so I can keep more money for mods, etc.

No, I'm saying that you're whining about 5% of the country. Boo hoo, I make too much fucking money and I don't wanna pay taxes, wahhhh!!!

Besides, what the hell are you talking about "taxing the shit" out of them? The upper 5% pay less in taxes percentage wise than any other demographic. The top 2% (a part of the group you're whining in defense of) own 26% of the entire US economy. And they shouldn't be taxed at a reasonable rate.

You take 15% of $100,000, it's a whole lot less hurtful than 15% of $30,000.

You're such a flaming dumbass, I don't even know why I've wasted my time posting this.

Again...it has nothing to do with more than one income - meaning your wife's income has no bearing on the limit of FICA taxes on you.

[/b]

From the census bureau.

[/quote][/qb]

Not fair to lower income. If people want a "fair tax," then let's do it across the board.

Some will say income tax is not fair to higher incomes - since they pay a higher percentage. But Social Security is the exact opposite - lower income people pay a higher percentage than high income.

Take it a step further...

Joe makes $200,000 a year. He pays about 7% into Social Security...of $97,000, not $200,000.

So Joe is only paying about 3.5% of his income into Social Security.

Bob makes $30,000. He pays 7% of 30,000. Bob is paying 7% of HIS income. Double the *rate* that Joe is paying.

Do you have a link to the Census Bureau data on this stuff?

Why is the Census Bureau any type of authority on earnings? They only know what people tell them. The actual and correct data would have to come from the IRS or the Social Security Administration. They are the only federal agencies that would have correct and factual data on earnings.

Your "unfair" argument is completely bogus Moby. It's a crock.

What is "across the board" to you? All income being taxable for social security?

Every employed worker pays the exact same percentage into social security taxes. It is curently 12.4%. The employee pays half and the employer pays half (It used to more than that).

The SS payroll tax is only levied on the first $97,500 of taxable income. You claim this is not fair. That is not the truth. It's probably unfair to subject taxable earnings that high for social security.

You completely overlook the fact that when people retire, there is a MAXIMUM amount that anyone can receive on a monthly basis.

If you want to start taxing wages into much higher amounts while still keeping a maximum benefit amount at retirement.... that is completely unfair.

If you want the system to be fair, remove the maximum payout benefit and let the people who paid in more, receive more. Pro-rated to what they paid. That would be the only fair system.

The maximum benefit already makes the system unfair to high wage earners.

Your whole "unfair" argument is completely ridiculous.