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 (4/8/2013 9:09:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl My stand on taxes are well posted on these boards. But I also dont walk around with rose colored glasses talking about the fantasy world I would like to see. I work with reality and knowing just what our politicians and their greedy lil fingers will let go of and what they wont. Taxes is something they dont want to budge on. LMAO! So, your "stand" on taxes (yes, we've discussed them a time or two (or three+)) really doesn't mean much since you'll just accept that politicians are greedy and get what you can. Got it.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 9:11:19 AM)
quote: There is a maximum benefit set There is? You mean after "x" number of years you cannot draw anymore?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 9:17:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: There is a maximum benefit set There is? You mean after "x" number of years you cannot draw anymore? From your very own post: quote: Maximum Level of Benefits and Maximum Taxable Wages. Within this context, Congress determined that it was appropriate to set an upper limit on the amount of income that Americans could receive from the Social Security program. A limit on benefits, combined with the principle that workers' benefits should relate to the amount of money that they paid into the system, made an upper limit on the taxes that workers would pay appropriate. And yet I dont see you complaining about this. [;)] {bolding, coloring and font increase mine}

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 9:22:09 AM)
That was from your post. I ask again... if there a limited number of years one can draw Social Security? Answer is no. Some people never pay into the system at all. And you can gain more in your monthly checks by working longer.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 9:30:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl That was from your post. I ask again... if there a limited number of years one can draw Social Security? Answer is no. Some people never pay into the system at all. And you can gain more in your monthly checks by working longer. I know where you got the quote. Yet, you felt it necessary to quote it. Did you also notice the part that said that SS was only supposed to supplement by giving just a basic level of income and wasn't supposed to be a "welfare-type" program?

mnottertail -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 9:36:13 AM)
And? Did it also say that the whale is undoubtably one of the largest mammals alive today? And is any of that somehow germaine?

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 9:40:30 AM)
Fantasy...... quote: Did you also notice the part that said that SS was only supposed to supplement by giving just a basic level of income and wasn't supposed to be a "welfare-type" program? Reality is.... [;)]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 10:46:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And? Did it also say that the whale is undoubtably one of the largest mammals alive today? And is any of that somehow germaine? No, but I think there was something about whaletails...

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 10:48:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Fantasy...... quote: Did you also notice the part that said that SS was only supposed to supplement by giving just a basic level of income and wasn't supposed to be a "welfare-type" program? Reality is.... [;)] Exactly. And, it's why I want to roll back a lot of the bullshit and resist more bullshit. Bills are being written for certain results, and those results rarely resemble what really happens. Why let them do more? But, glad to know what level you're shooting for.

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 11:53:01 AM)
Im shooting for reality here. Try it.

mnottertail -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 11:56:44 AM)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html There is the goals of social security. Anything else is revisionist history, and teabagger ideologies.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 12:37:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im shooting for reality here. Try it. Then do you truly believe in your oft-stated tax desire?

mnottertail -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 12:43:23 PM)
Her oft stated tax desire may have no relation to your comprehension, nor your disingenuity. You state here for all our benifit her 'oft stated' tax desire, cuz I have not seen it oft or ever, nary nor never.

tj444 -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 1:42:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Because with the poor and middle class, those dollars are taxed already. Romney's all came from capital gains, taxed at a far lower rate, then the extra bennie from having it in that kind of account. So, get rid of the capital gains tax and all those dollars will be taxed the same, no? And, even if the capital gains tax isn't changed, Romney et. al. still paid taxes on them, didn't they? Puerto Rico has a new law for people like that.. no capital gains tax if they move to PR & live there for half the year (which is the residency requirement).. there are various other tax benefits as well.. see how easy it is to avoid paying US taxes, best of both worlds with very little inconvenience too, imo.. just sayin' http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-11/paulson-parting-puerto-rico-prevent-tax-payments (Paulson has since stated he wont move to PR but thats not stopping others)

tazzygirl -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 2:14:53 PM)
Generally, a PR resident is an individual who is domiciled in PR. Although there is a presumption that any individual present in PR for more than 183 days is a resident, facts and circumstances should be closely evaluated since this may not always be the case. Some key factors that may impact residency include: location of home, family, bank accounts, dependents' school, driver license, medical insurance, and voting registration. ............. The portion of long-term capital gains attributable to the increase in value of securities after a Resident Individual Investor establishes domicile in PR will be exempt from PR taxation, if the securities are disposed before January 1, 2036. This exemption would apply to securities acquired before or during the Exemption Period. However, for capital gains recognized after December 31, 2035, the entire net gain would be subject to income tax under the PR Code. This means that the increase in value attributable to the Exemption Period would be fully taxable if the securities are disposed after the Exemption Period expires. http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/hr-management-services/newsletters/global-watch/assets/pwc-puerto-rico-income-tax-exemption-granted-non-residents.pdf

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 3:02:05 PM)
Sorry but the just use another tax shelter to put the money into. It does not insure anything when it comes to those that have the means to play the tax breaks. Also, those revenues are needed ASAP, along with reduction in spending, so it still does not play. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic 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.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 3:05:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri 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? Sorry but you are using the ludicrous to try and make a point in the realistic. The next step should be increase in taxes, reduction in spending, decrease the import deficit, and grow the GNP but all of that takes a lot of steps. The government has the authority given to them by the people to do these things. I am not going to argue the right or wrong of it, as I am being specific to the point of a cap on tax deferment of IRA's.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 3:10:12 PM)
There is no equality. Just like in business, they make some things increase and some things not. Some situations get a price break, and some do not. Don't go preaching open market stuff and then turn around and say you want things done equally across the board. No one and nothing is equal, and if life has not taught you that yet, I hope the lesson does not damage you too much. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri My complaint is that it's not applying equally across the board.

tj444 -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 3:50:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Generally, a PR resident is an individual who is domiciled in PR. Although there is a presumption that any individual present in PR for more than 183 days is a resident, facts and circumstances should be closely evaluated since this may not always be the case. Some key factors that may impact residency include: location of home, family, bank accounts, dependents' school, driver license, medical insurance, and voting registration. ............. The portion of long-term capital gains attributable to the increase in value of securities after a Resident Individual Investor establishes domicile in PR will be exempt from PR taxation, if the securities are disposed before January 1, 2036. This exemption would apply to securities acquired before or during the Exemption Period. However, for capital gains recognized after December 31, 2035, the entire net gain would be subject to income tax under the PR Code. This means that the increase in value attributable to the Exemption Period would be fully taxable if the securities are disposed after the Exemption Period expires. http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/hr-management-services/newsletters/global-watch/assets/pwc-puerto-rico-income-tax-exemption-granted-non-residents.pdf well of course all of that (anyone moving from one state to another will also most likely do the same things as on the list), and you have to set up/move your business there also to get the tax break (since its PR giving you the tax break, not the US) but a hedge fund manager, etc can fly and travel in the rest of the US just like any other state.. its part of the US but yet it isnt.. and when you do need to be there in PR for your half year you can always use video conferencing and such..moving there wont negatively affect a hedge managers business one bit.. and its easier than truly going offshore when you need to meet some other countries qualifications, apply for visas, the cost & time of all of that, any American can just as easily move to PR as they could move to Florida.. eta- 2036 is 23 years from now.. thats a nice long time for your money to grow tax free.. and who is to say it wont be extended for another 20 years after that?

Yachtie -> RE: Obama knows best (4/8/2013 3:56:00 PM)
FR [image]local://upfiles/1352141/D0D49F96D19E4682AE2D6EE35BD29C6B.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875