RE: Obama knows best

RE: Obama knows best (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 3:56:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf ~FR~ The Gubment originally started the tax deferred on IRA's and I doubt anyone complained then. So they are capping it at a huge amount that only the extremely wealthy will be effected. Don't see an issue there since it is one more tax break that the extremely wealthy do not need. It was put in place to entice those with little to no retirement savings, to start saving. If that limitation had been there originally, no one would even be mentioning it. It makes sense. It is only an issue to those that have an issue with Obama. Just one more thing to distract, deflect and demonize. Who is government to go in and tell someone how much they need? If that person earned that money, it's theirs, not government's. What happens when government decides that $20 is more than you need to put in yearly?

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 5:13:42 PM)
No one is arguing they didnt make the money. What they are saying is that they arent going to be able to hide all of it in a tax reduced account.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 5:57:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie But it wasn't stated as a cap for taxation purposes. The senior administration said it's about reasonable levels of retirement saving. Why say that if social engineering were not at its root? Many things in life have to be revised because some things were not seen ahead of time. The very wealthy do not need incentives to save for retirement, as they often have what they need now to retire later. quote: Why does the government hate even the wealthy so much? I do not see it as hate the wealthy. I see it as removing things that the wealthy do not need. quote: In case you haven't noticed it yet Orion, if it wasn't a problem then, The Gubment originally started the tax deferred on IRA's and I doubt anyone complained then, why is it now? Perhaps because the government is in financial straights and wants to bail itself out on the backs, and you'll approve this, of the wealthy? Does this give you any indication of the problems we're all in? The Portuguese government is considering a plan to pay public workers and pensioners one month of their salary in treasury bills rather than cash after a high court ruled out wage cuts, a person familiar with the situation said Sunday. At some point the gubment is going to remove many things. It is a fact. The spending has been going on for decades, both parties at fault. I am just waiting for some politicians to grow some balls and do what will eventually have to be done. I see you harping on the wording of why they had to do it, rather than looking at the fact that things like this have to be done. Putting a cap on it and removing the cap on SS contributions are two things I see as needing to be done. I also see many other things needing to be done, but it has to start somewhere. You see I do not automatically dislike something based upon which party it comes from. I look at the effect it is likely to have and then decide for myself.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 6:02:13 PM)
Your argument does not seem valid, since they are the ones that originally set up IRA's as tax deferred. I agree that they earned it and should be taxed accordingly on it. If someone wants to save for retirement, that should be incentive enough. Making it tax deferred just credit a tax dodge for many, that will use a different tax dodge when they bring the money out. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Who is government to go in and tell someone how much they need? If that person earned that money, it's theirs, not government's. What happens when government decides that $20 is more than you need to put in yearly?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 6:06:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Your argument does not seem valid, since they are the ones that originally set up IRA's as tax deferred. I agree that they earned it and should be taxed accordingly on it. If someone wants to save for retirement, that should be incentive enough. Making it tax deferred just credit a tax dodge for many, that will use a different tax dodge when they bring the money out. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Who is government to go in and tell someone how much they need? If that person earned that money, it's theirs, not government's. What happens when government decides that $20 is more than you need to put in yearly? You take my example to task, but didn't answer my question. Where does Government get the authority to tell anyone how much they do or don't need for retirement and then levy a higher tax on whatever crosses that line?

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 6:11:06 PM)
quote: You take my example to task, but didn't answer my question. Where does Government get the authority to tell anyone how much they do or don't need for retirement and then levy a higher tax on whatever crosses that line? The same place they get the authority to say how much the poverty level is...

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 6:12:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: You take my example to task, but didn't answer my question. Where does Government get the authority to tell anyone how much they do or don't need for retirement and then levy a higher tax on whatever crosses that line? The same place they get the authority to say how much the poverty level is... Ah. Thanks. An Assumed Authority, it is, then.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 6:18:17 PM)
Do we continue to allow unlimited tax cuts simply because a loophole was found?

graceadieu -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 7:41:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MstSebastian quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu IRAs are essentially special tax breaks that the government gives, in order to help middle- and working-class people save more so they don't need assistance in their old age. Now, it seems, the government wants to reduce the benefit for people who are rich enough to not really need any help saving for retirement, in order to raise revenue. Where is the problem with this? Is cutting government aid to balance the budget only a good thing when it's aid that helps poor people? Gotta love that Republican attitude - "Cutting retirement aid to the wealthy?! Outrageous!!! We should be cutting housing assistance for homeless people instead!!" The problem, and I only speak for myself here, is that the notion of reducing benefits in order to raise revenue is really nothing more than a fancy way to say "the government thinks it deserves even more of your money." It's like the Democrats in DC keep saying, we don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. Yeah...sure, we do. [8\|] Alternatively, it's a way of saying "the government thinks you deserve less of a handout".

graceadieu -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 7:48:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You take my example to task, but didn't answer my question. Where does Government get the authority to tell anyone how much they do or don't need for retirement and then levy a higher tax on whatever crosses that line? Where does the government get the authority to tell people they ought to save for retirement at all, and levy higher taxes on people who don't save? If the government has the right to arbitrarily create special tax breaks for retirement savings, they also have the right to determine who qualifies for them.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 8:03:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~FR The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code. Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/292071-obama-budget-to-target-wealthy-iras#ixzz2PiTdtvIj High savings is where loans/funding comes from. Investment, etc. With low savings, there are no funds to invest/grow businesses, buy homes, etc. This will provide a very nice short term boost to the Treasury and a long term guarantee that, once again, the goal is to rely more on the government. Rock soup.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 8:04:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 thats only part of one of his changes.. I just read this.. the Prez has invented a new consumer price index.. ya know, cuz the inflation rate needs to be lower.. [8\|] President Barack Obama’s proposal to change the way the government measures inflation could lead to fewer people qualifying for college grants and anti-poverty programs, reduced benefits for seniors and veterans, and higher taxes for low-income families. If adopted across the government, the new inflation measure would have far-reaching effects because so many programs are adjusted each year based on year-to-year changes in consumer prices. Social Security recipients would get smaller benefit increases each year. The federal poverty level would rise by smaller amounts, meaning more people would technically rise out of poverty with only small increases in income. Taxes would go up because of smaller adjustments to income tax brackets, the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount. Called the Chained Consumer Price Index, the new measure would show a lower level of inflation than the more widely used Consumer Price Index. http://www.macombdaily.com/article/20130405/NEWS04/130409696/obama-plan-hits-seniors-and-low-income-taxpayers Unfortunately, every President since Johnson has toyed with this calculation. See www.shadowstats.com for a more accurate portrayal of inflation pre Nixon.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 8:05:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Ya know Tazzy, it would be one thing to state about curbing levels . But that's not quite how it's being portrayed. "to fund reasonable* levels of retirement saving"* smacks of Big Brother. "We'll tell you what you need. We're from the government."[8D] In IRA and other retirement accounts. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168972507188592.html Remember? It starts there. (It won't end there).

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 9:37:09 PM)
Why should it end there? Its not like tomorrow more is going to roll out. Government doesnt work that way. Look at all the corporate loopholes that are still around.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 9:40:00 PM)
I thought the question rhetorical. They get the authority from the people that elected them into office. Your questions does not relate to the topic. The gubnet is telling them there is a cap on how much they will allow in tax deferral, not in how much they can save. If they had never created the deferral, 100% would be taxed. Now answer this, do you really believe the very wealthy need a deferral as an incentive to put money away for retirement? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You take my example to task, but didn't answer my question. Where does Government get the authority to tell anyone how much they do or don't need for retirement and then levy a higher tax on whatever crosses that line?

TheHeretic -> RE: Obama knows best (4/7/2013 9:55:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Now answer this, do you really believe the very wealthy need a deferral as an incentive to put money away for retirement? That has nothing to do with the aim of the program, when it comes to the uber-wealthy. By allowing large sums of pre-tax funds to be locked up in retirement accounts, it ensures a flow of tax revenue from them later, when they pull it back out again. This will wind up as fodder for the class warfare politicians of 20 years from now, and the libs of that day will most likely be in utter denial that it was Obama who set it up that way.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 3:19:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I thought the question rhetorical. They get the authority from the people that elected them into office. Your questions does not relate to the topic. The gubnet is telling them there is a cap on how much they will allow in tax deferral, not in how much they can save. If they had never created the deferral, 100% would be taxed. Now answer this, do you really believe the very wealthy need a deferral as an incentive to put money away for retirement? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You take my example to task, but didn't answer my question. Where does Government get the authority to tell anyone how much they do or don't need for retirement and then levy a higher tax on whatever crosses that line? Do they need an incentive? Apparently not. But, with the incentive in place, taking it away will do what? Will they continue to save the same (pre-tax) amount? Maybe. Will they find other ways to save their money to limit their taxes? Likely. But, that isn't the point, either. Is Government going to come out and tell us that we don't need to make more than $1M/year in salary and benefits? There is supposed to be a limit on the authority of the Federal Government. There is no authority within the Constitution for the Government to put a cap on the amount of money you "need" for retirement. If they can tell you the cap is $3M, after which you lose the tax break, what's to stop them from increasing the tax level over and above removing the break? Or, lowering that cap #? What is Government's next step in raising revenue if everyone that this effects stops saving more than $3M?

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 4:59:08 AM)
quote: But, that isn't the point, either. Is Government going to come out and tell us that we don't need to make more than $1M/year in salary and benefits? They didnt say what you needed to make. You can make as much as your little heart desires. You may be limited on how much of that you can shelter from taxes. quote: What is Government's next step in raising revenue if everyone that this effects stops saving more than $3M? If the Romney's of the US stop saving more than 3M, what are they going to do with the rest? [;)]

Lucylastic -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 5:20:26 AM)
sure as hell wont spend it in the US

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 5:28:38 AM)
How many times have we heard its a "Global" economy?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875