- This topic has 450 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 10 months ago by
Coronita.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 28, 2008 at 6:08 PM #263128August 28, 2008 at 6:19 PM #262831
PatentGuy
ParticipantI am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).
If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).
As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.
If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.
Guess I’m ranting again.
August 28, 2008 at 6:19 PM #263037ParticipantI am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).
If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).
As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.
If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.
Guess I’m ranting again.
August 28, 2008 at 6:19 PM #263044ParticipantI am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).
If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).
As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.
If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.
Guess I’m ranting again.
August 28, 2008 at 6:19 PM #263095ParticipantI am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).
If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).
As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.
If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.
Guess I’m ranting again.
August 28, 2008 at 6:19 PM #263133ParticipantI am one of the “rich” (by Obama standards) comrades. But, that’s because I make lots of income (only for the past few years after 20 years building up to this point), NOT because we have any measurable assets in the sense of “rich”. Increasing the social security tax is a targeted income tax that only applies to “earned” income (not interest, dividends, cap gains, etc).
If I have a choice between paying an extra $120K in soc security taxes for each of the next 20 years, or simply opting out of benefits even though I have paid in the “max” for the prior 20 years, that’s fine by me, even if I still pay the basic $12K (or whatever it is up to for the self-employed).
As for people that demand being paid back because they paid in; therein lies the rub. You are treating it as some sort of personal account instead of mislabeled federal income tax.
If it really is a personal account, then I expect my additional $120K/year to be returned in the form of corresponding additional payout benefit. But, I don’t hear that proposed by the Tax Man (Obama). Also, if it is a personal account, then let me choose how it is invested. SD real estate may be a real bargain one of these days.
Guess I’m ranting again.
August 28, 2008 at 6:33 PM #262836renterclint
ParticipantI do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.
August 28, 2008 at 6:33 PM #263042ParticipantI do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.
August 28, 2008 at 6:33 PM #263049ParticipantI do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.
August 28, 2008 at 6:33 PM #263100ParticipantI do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.
August 28, 2008 at 6:33 PM #263138ParticipantI do not think your ranting this time. Makes sense to me. Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.
August 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM #262846Participant“Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.”
I believe you now get my point regarding Obama’s tax plan. It is brutal on successful self employed.
August 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM #263053Participant“Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.”
I believe you now get my point regarding Obama’s tax plan. It is brutal on successful self employed.
August 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM #263059Participant“Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.”
I believe you now get my point regarding Obama’s tax plan. It is brutal on successful self employed.
August 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM #263110Participant“Btw that 15% SE tax is brutal.”
I believe you now get my point regarding Obama’s tax plan. It is brutal on successful self employed.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.