Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65

Thread: Fairness

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Good enough for me, was just curious.

    And welcome to DP!!
    Thanks. I am very passionate about matters of taxation. I see so many posters on boards asking why someone like Romney pays 15% tax and they pay a higher rate. Rarely does someone allude to the fact that capital is what provides the jobs this country depends on. Capital supplies business interests and those business interest provide tax paying jobs. If someone uses capital that has already been taxed once as ordinary income it boggles my mind that they dont understand why it recieves a favorable rate once it is used for investment.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Abbey View Post
    Welcome, shockwave
    Thank you. !

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    His tax rate is already higher but it should have nothing to do with whatever his "lower paid employees" get paid.

    Oh, and I'll take you off the shortlist.



    I don't think one has anything to do with the other. Your pal Bill decided he should rein in CEO compensation back in '93 by limiting the deductability of executive compensation over $1mm. Do you know what happened? CEO salary now rarely rises above 1mm but is packed with options that increase their overall package. That worked out well didn't it?

    Pushing social justice by government fiat creates outcomes that are opposite of their intended effects. Social Security? It's no longer about security, it's become a retirement program. By providing people a SS retirement means that they aren't going to invest for themselves and are no longer encouraged to build an asset base that they can live off of or pass on to the next generation. Is it any wonder that the poor are permanently poor? If you want to make sure old people don't eat dog food and live out of cardboard boxes create a program that helps those that need it. Don't create a program that supports every old person over 65 including those who don't need it.

    We're ageed there. Which is why I advocate telling those who earned $5M in their last 5 years of working, thanks for the contributions, but you are ineligible to receive social security benefits.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shockwave View Post
    Thank you. !
    I'll add my welcome. You need an avatar. Might I suggest

    shockwave_transformers.jpg

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    5
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    I'll add my welcome. You need an avatar. Might I suggest

    shockwave_transformers.jpg
    Ok. That was funny.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    We're ageed there. Which is why I advocate telling those who earned $5M in their last 5 years of working, thanks for the contributions, but you are ineligible to receive social security benefits.
    Why take away what they've been promised?
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Why take away what they've been promised?
    Umm because they don't need it and won't miss it? Isn't taking away from some who can afford to have it taken away better than the entire damn system collapsing down around itself?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    Umm because they don't need it and won't miss it? Isn't taking away from some who can afford to have it taken away better than the entire damn system collapsing down around itself?
    Are you ready to apply that to all government pensions? The rich already get a decreasing (reverse progressivity) return of their contributions. The system isn't collapsing because of those very few, it's collapsing because it is a crap system.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Are you ready to apply that to all government pensions? The rich already get a decreasing (reverse progressivity) return of their contributions. The system isn't collapsing because of those very few, it's collapsing because it is a crap system.
    I'm willing to do whatever it takes FJ, whatever it takes to be fair the most people and whatever it takes to get our government solvent again.

    I don't know fair has to mean fair for one side or the other. Why not be fair to both sides? Yes ending all entitlements would certainly go a long way towards fixing the budget, but it would hurt a lot of people. So why not selectively cut people. If someone's been fortunate enough to secure their future without SS benefits then those benefits should be paid to others who are going to collect regardless.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    So why not selectively cut people.
    Because it needs wholesale changes. Cutting a few of the rich people you somehow now don't think are paying enough isn't going to cut it.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Because it needs wholesale changes. Cutting a few of the rich people you somehow now don't think are paying enough isn't going to cut it.
    Okay propose some wholesale changes, I agree that WOULD be best, but it's not going to happen as long as you don't let me implement voter exams.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    Okay propose some wholesale changes, I agree that WOULD be best, but it's not going to happen as long as you don't let me implement voter exams.
    I would either propose that every retiree receive, say, $1000 per month regardless of income, wealth, etc. while they have been paying half of their SS contribution into a government retirement account THAT THEY OWN and can pass on any remainders to their heirs or it's treated solely as a welfare issue.

    That second one won't fly at all and the first requires some sort of phase-in period; the current average payment is about $2500 but immediately raising the retirement age more aggressively.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    I would either propose that every retiree receive, say, $1000 per month regardless of income, wealth, etc. while they have been paying half of their SS contribution into a government retirement account THAT THEY OWN and can pass on any remainders to their heirs or it's treated solely as a welfare issue.

    That second one won't fly at all and the first requires some sort of phase-in period; the current average payment is about $2500 but immediately raising the retirement age more aggressively.
    So proposal one, you are still proposing take some of what the more wealthy have paid in. It's just a matter of amounts relative to my suggestion.

    Your second proposal , I agree the retirement age probably needs to be raised; but as you say, it will never happen.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,895
    Thanks (Given)
    4182
    Thanks (Received)
    4529
    Likes (Given)
    1414
    Likes (Received)
    1066
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConHog View Post
    So proposal one, you are still proposing take some of what the more wealthy have paid in. It's just a matter of amounts relative to my suggestion.

    Your second proposal , I agree the retirement age probably needs to be raised; but as you say, it will never happen.
    Not necessarily, it would be phased in. The retirement age is already rising, albeit too slowly. I forgot to add that the proposal would have to be actuarially solvent.

    I would also add that my plan rules, yours is knee-jerk reactionism.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    11,865
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    Not necessarily, it would be phased in. The retirement age is already rising, albeit too slowly. I forgot to add that the proposal would have to be actuarially solvent.

    I would also add that my plan rules, yours is knee-jerk reactionism.


    Your plan drools.

    And of course no changes should be made if they actually don't make fiscal sense. I am not holding my breath for the government to make fiscal sense .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums