BF2S Forums A terrible proposal

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They are as entitled to their money as anyone else. The government doesn't need it.

This country needs all the investment it can get. God knows the middle class isn't investing.

So a self described libertarian doesn't believe that everyone should have equal protection under the law? Nice to know.

LOL no, don't bring that weak shit up in here. I have never described myself as a libertarian. I am moderately certain the only time that label has even been applied to me in the past was not in a public section.

We already went through this. Justice has nothing to do with income. Income is extremely relevant in the economics of taxation.

Are you saying that the old are just a burden on society FM, we'd be better to deny them healthcare so they don't hamper the young and healthy?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How do you justify ending SS but keeping universal healthcare? Old people dying because they can't pay their heating bill is the same thing as old people dying because they can't pay for their prescriptions.

The majority of expenses incurred by SS are healthcare related.  So, if we got rid of socialized retirement, we could still take care of the health needs of the old.

Basically, what it comes down to is that retirement is a private responsibility.  I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's retirement because my generation will mostly work until it dies.  I know I probably will.

Retirement in the future will likely become a luxury for the rich.

You shouldn't have to pay for someone's retirement, so why should you have to pay for their healthcare?

In later years, particularly if you make the best medicine available to everyone, people just don't have the health to work. Maybe someone like you who (I assume) has technical skills then you could essentially do your work sitting in bed, but what about laborers?

That's a good point, but I would argue that we should return to taking care of our elders within our families rather than sending them off to rest homes.  Currently, my grandfather is living with my parents, and I figure that when my parents get old, I'll at least be around to help them when they are elderly.

Granted, I realize that this means I should probably have kids eventually to help me when I get older and they're grown up.

Still, with medicine being socialized, the majority of expenses for the elderly would still be covered.  It would just be a matter of making sure they have housing.

The reason why I don't like to socialize retirement is that retiring is optional.  Healthcare isn't.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't think retirement is optional in enough cases for it to be dismissed like that. I expect the working age to rise significantly, but even so the emphasis on life span over quality of life in medicine means there are still going to be a lot of old people. There really just aren't a lot of jobs that the average 90 year old person can hold down.

Not that it matters too much because we're never going to get rid of SS haha.

True...   but I think the life span will actually fall in the near future.

Healthcare, even in a socialized system, will continue to grow more expensive with time.  In the short run, our healthcare costs would fall with socialization, but after the global market starts to level out as the wealth gap between the First World and Third World closes, quality of life probably will become more of the emphasis, but life span will decrease for those countries that have the longest spans currently.

Unless there's some revolution that inhibits RNA degeneration, the human body will remain feeble upon reaching the 70s.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't think retirement is optional in enough cases for it to be dismissed like that. I expect the working age to rise significantly, but even so the emphasis on life span over quality of life in medicine means there are still going to be a lot of old people. There really just aren't a lot of jobs that the average 90 year old person can hold down.

Not that it matters too much because we're never going to get rid of SS haha.

True...   but I think the life span will actually fall in the near future.

Healthcare, even in a socialized system, will continue to grow more expensive with time.  In the short run, our healthcare costs would fall with socialization, but after the global market starts to level out as the wealth gap between the First World and Third World closes, quality of life probably will become more of the emphasis, but life span will decrease for those countries that have the longest spans currently.

Unless there's some revolution that inhibits RNA degeneration, the human body will remain feeble upon reaching the 70s.

Feeble, but it doesn't break down to the point of the complete inability to replicate until long after that. With better cancer treatments and such to minimize how many people the side-effects may kill, people just get useless for a longer period of time.

To a degree, yes...  but I think said treatments may become prohibitively expensive for the majority of the populace, even with socialization.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I thought you believed in treatment no matter what the cost?

Theoretically, yes.  In practice, however, I can't think of a single socialized system that actually does that absolutely.

For example, if you want some obscure and really expensive procedure done in Canada, it might take a while for the public system to serve you.  This is why some Canadians come here for those treatments.  This is often used as ammunition against socialization, but people forget that in a privatized system, you're no better off, because you can't afford to get those treatments usually anyway.

In short, whether you socialize or not, there is a certain level of care that is only typically available for the wealthy.  I believe many cancer treatments will fall under this category in the near future.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-01-28 22:15:54)

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

And how much are you investing? My entire point was that if the capital gains tax doesn't match the income tax bracket then people are skating through without paying as much as the public thinks they are. The Dems raising the top income tax bracket doesn't really hurt a whole lot of people, it's all show, since most of the uber wealthy, not working stiffs like you, pay the vast majority of their taxes via cap gains. It's all smoke and mirrors to make you, the poor working schlubb think he's 'socking it to the rich'.

Duly noted.  But your assumptions about the top tax bracket are wrong.

How much am I investing?  The wife & I could retire in 10 years, but I'll probably keep working because I enjoy what I do.  But if I do quit in 10 years, my income will drop, probably about half...because I'll only take out money I need to live on so I won't have to trade very much.  With the exception of the year I sell my business...of course.

As far as "working stiffs that pay the vast majority of their tax via cap gains".  Well, at some point the money that funded those investments was earned, and taxed.  If inherited, the parents paid the tax when they earned it.  You can't generate a portfolio from butkiss.

You can't, no. I guess my gripe is with unearned wealth surviving into perpetuity. Even with the 55% 'death tax', that money can be made back in a few short years.

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The only people actually paying the 35% are people who make a salary above $373,651 a year. People like movie stars and baseball players and (apparently) CPAs. People like Paris Hilton pay this on their salary but the vast majority of her annual income would be taxed at the lower 15% cap gains rate because she is an heiress and that money is sunk into securities.

I married the breadwinner buddy

Point still stands. What does she do if you don't mind me asking?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The only people actually paying the 35% are people who make a salary above $373,651 a year. People like movie stars and baseball players and (apparently) CPAs. People like Paris Hilton pay this on their salary but the vast majority of her annual income would be taxed at the lower 15% cap gains rate because she is an heiress and that money is sunk into securities.

I married the breadwinner buddy

Point still stands. What does she do if you don't mind me asking?

Silly rabbit.

She does me

Pug wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You can't, no. I guess my gripe is with unearned wealth surviving into perpetuity. Even with the 55% 'death tax', that money can be made back in a few short years.

So what.  Someone paid taxes on the original earnings.

If you want to blow out the cap gains tax percentage, you have a major rework of the tax code, and adjustment to SEC guidelines on what an investment is.

Currently, if I own an LLC and add an investor, I'm subject to SEC guidelines.  I don't see this changing much, because this is the crap Enron and Madoff played around in.  An if a small business is subject to those guidelines, if I own a small business and want to sell...I want the 15% rate not the full rate.  So by "fixing" the uberwealthy problem, you just fucked over 85% of the population.

Understand?

The low cap gains rate of 15% is one of the primary causes of our current recession/depression whatever you want to call it. People decided to go nuts and blow their load as soon as it was lowered from 20% because they knew it was expiring next year.

Pug wrote:

Oh good God.

I'm not even going to argue against that.

So argue against this

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/a … age002.jpg

Fine man, don't argue. You're benefiting from it, I'll be benefiting from it shortly. I'll just never pay attention to (R) and (D) claims about taxing the rich or not taxing the rich anymore

Pug wrote:

No, I will pay attention to it.  Look, I make my living recommending business/trust/estate/individual stuff to avoid unneccessary expenses.  I'm telling you there isn't as many "great" loopholes as you think.  You end up just delaying it, that's all...

I wasn't talking about loopholes. My entire argument in this thread has been that the wealthy in this country are paying less over the long term in taxes proportionate to someone in the middle class. Yes, If I make money today and it's taxed at 35% I am paying more than a member of the middle class, today. 20 years from now when the bulk of that paycheck has been invested on the part of the wealthy person they've ended up paying a lower tax rate than the middle class person who didn't have nearly as much disposable income to invest. At that point twenty years from today, the wealthy person has ended up paying a lower overall tax rate on their earnings. That's my entire argument.

For those that started life with a trust fund/stock portfolio with enough in it that they can work at an NPO or some other garbage for peanuts, they never pay even as much as those in the middle class.


Edit - Yeah, nevermind, my argument is crap because the middle class person in my argument isn't taking any risk. When risk and the potential for catastrophic losses is added it just about evens out. Not everyone is Warren Buffett after all

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-29 09:23:01)