Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

[Troglodyte]

Soc Sec was established in 1935 when the average life expectancy was 66 and you collected at 65. These days people routinely live well into their 80's. My grandmother died in 1968 at the age of 69 and she was OLD. My grandfather died in 1978 at 78, same deal. Now my parents are both 79 and bop around just fine except for some arthritis and my dad having a pacemaker and mom's cancer coming back. Back in the day almost everyone smoked a pack or two a day too.

Yes, but life expectancy is still only in the mid 70s. In 1935, it was unheard of that a baby born several weeks early, or with some other serious health problem survived. Now it's routine. There weren't as many 80 and 90 year olds but it wasn't completely unheard of.

They smoked more but they were also a lot less sedentary and had healthier diets. A morbidly obese person was something you had to pay to see at the carnival.

 

[Troglodyte]

I am for the flat tax. People with more money will buy more "toys" and therefore be taxed more.

Just as there aren't enough rich people to tax them exclusively, there aren't enough to support the consumption side of the economy. We don't live in yacht sales and country club membership sales economy.

 

[Troglodyte]

You are absolutely correct JonBoy, we are living way longer than the plan was designed to sustain and modern medicine is making it harder by the day.

No, one of the big criticism of the increase in healthcare spending is that very often the majority of a persons lifetime expenditure occurs in the last year or months of their life. In other words, we spend a lot of money delaying the inevitable for few months.

If a person lives into their 80s or 90s it's more likely it has to do with genetics or living a healthy lifestyle, than modern medicine.

 

[Troglodyte]

Dude,

DI or Disposable Income is what matters. The dough each person or corporation has left to spend when all its other obligations are met.

EBITDA is simply an accounting function that relates to many artificial corporate structures like net tax effect, depreciation schedules, implied interest, etc. that can easily be manipulated to demonstrate "great corporate earnings" like GE while no net tax is paid.

Come on, man!

EBITDA is useful for looking at net income from operations which is what you want to consider when hiring additional employees. If doing so increases income taxes, it means you've increased income, so income taxes are not relevant to the decision.

 

[ark steel]

Yes, but life expectancy is still only in the mid 70s. In 1935, it was unheard of that a baby born several weeks early, or with some other serious health problem survived. Now it's routine. There weren't as many 80 and 90 year olds but it wasn't completely unheard of.

They smoked more but they were also a lot less sedentary and had healthier diets. A morbidly obese person was something you had to pay to see at the carnival.

USA today had a story in late 2014 that the Life Expectancy for US residents is 78.8. for someone aged 65, they are expected to live for 19.3 years. If I recall correctly, someone age 65 in 1935 was expected to live 12-13 years. That is 6-7+ more years of beneifts payed to millions of people. AND there are fewer people contributing to the system per recipient, AND mortality improvement is increasing.I

f you move the SSRA for full benefits to 70 (from 67), you alleviate about 1/2 of those years. In addition, you could make the reduction for earlier reitrement steeper.

 

[ark steel]

EBITDA is useful for looking at net income from operations which is what you want to consider when hiring additional employees. If doing so increases income taxes, it means you've increased income, so income taxes are not relevant to the decision.

But, lets say that increasing your income increases your taxes in such a way that it is more advantageous for you to invest your money elsewhere which would produce a lower tax burden. In addition, if hiring new employees puts you on the road to forced regulations for being over a certain number (50?), what do you do?

 

[Ron Burgundy]

No, one of the big criticism of the increase in healthcare spending is that very often the majority of a persons lifetime expenditure occurs in the last year or months of their life. In other words, we spend a lot of money delaying the inevitable for few months.

If a person lives into their 80s or 90s it's more likely it has to do with genetics or living a healthy lifestyle, than modern medicine.

Death Panelist!!!

 

[Troglodyte]

USA today had a story in late 2014 that the Life Expectancy for US residents is 78.8. for someone aged 65, they are expected to live for 19.3 years. If I recall correctly, someone age 65 in 1935 was expected to live 12-13 years. That is 6-7+ more years of beneifts payed to millions of people. AND there are fewer people contributing to the system per recipient, AND mortality improvement is increasing.I

f you move the SSRA for full benefits to 70 (from 67), you alleviate about 1/2 of those years. In addition, you could make the reduction for earlier reitrement steeper.

Wow, I didn't realize it had increased that much. That must explain how my 70 year old father in law was able to find a reasonably priced 10 year life insurance policy.

Good ideas for reducing the cost but implementing them without a lot of grandfather clauses tis also politically unpopular.

 

[ark steel]

Wow, I didn't realize it had increased that much. That must explain how my 70 year old father in law was able to find a reasonably priced 10 year life insurance policy.

Good ideas for reducing the cost but implementing them without a lot of grandfather clauses tis also politically unpopular.

I had actually thought it was more as I thought the age 65 LE in 1930's was 9-10 years. BTW, I copied those numbers from the SS website.

Not, exactly, relevant to the population as a whole, the Society of Actuaries just released a new mortality study of Healthy Annuitiants (data from private pension plans) and ended up with 21.6 years for males and 23.8 for females from age 65.

Those ideas should, indeed, include some grandfathering, and, probably some incrementing. When the age was raised from 65 to 67, it included both grandfathering and incrementing. That should not be too politically challenging. However, our "representatives" always **** with simple measures by adding to it with irrelevant **** to either increase/decrease odds of passage and/or want to do a whole big "comprehensive" reform at once.

 

[Confluence]

EBITDA is useful for looking at net income from operations which is what you want to consider when hiring additional employees. If doing so increases income taxes, it means you've increased income, so income taxes are not relevant to the decision.

Uh, it wouldn't be called Earnings BEFORE Income Taxes Depreciation & Amortization if those things didn't matter; it would just be net earnings. And EBITDA is only useful in comparing like businesses to discern effectiveness of the business; like Ark pointed out, it is not useful when comparing alternatives, which was OFTB's point.

 

[Steelr4evr]

The government is a massive money sucking black hole. We need massive cut backs in the size of this 6 headed monster. If we want all of our wealth leaving the country then by all means tax the hell out of them until they say **** you. It still won't resolve a thing. This country is so overtaxed and over regulated on everything from A-Z it's beyond absurd. This commie golfing shitfuck(Mr.Class Warfare) in the white house isn't helping at all,but a great many others running the show in the senate&congress are guilty as well. They assist those who line their pockets.

 

[ark steel]

Who is John Gault?

 

[SteelChip]

No, one of the big criticism of the increase in healthcare spending is that very often the majority of a persons lifetime expenditure occurs in the last year or months of their life. In other words, we spend a lot of money delaying the inevitable for few months.

If a person lives into their 80s or 90s it's more likely it has to do with genetics or living a healthy lifestyle, than modern medicine.

Well, while I see your argument and agree with it to a point ( genetics are a major factor ), I have to disagree with the premise that medicine has not progressed by leaps and bounds. I live amongst the elderly, I play golf with the elderly, hell...I am the elderly and what was considered potentially fatal 10 years ago is now on the outpatient calender. I have buddies go in for stints, bypasses and pacemakers all the time and they are kickin' my *** on the golf course a couple days later. We know so much more today about our health, it's just a matter of doing something about it before it's too late. The ones that do not pay attention are the ones that spend a lot of money in their " last year".

 

[Troglodyte]

Uh, it wouldn't be called Earnings BEFORE Income Taxes Depreciation & Amortization if those things didn't matter; it would just be net earnings. And EBITDA is only useful in comparing like businesses to discern effectiveness of the business; like Ark pointed out, it is not useful when comparing alternatives, which was OFTB's point.

And my point is you don't hire new employees simply because you have money left over, you need demand for a product or service. Income taxes don't figure into that decision.

So the alternative you're proposing is not investing in a business in which a profit is being made despite excess demand in the world's largest economy.

That is doing the competition a favor.

 

[jitter77]

Just as there aren't enough rich people to tax them exclusively, there aren't enough to support the consumption side on f the economy. We don't live in yacht sales and country club membership sales economy.

They would not be taxed exclusively. Everyone would have the same flat tax rates. People who spend more will pay more in taxes. If i buy a pair of jeans at Walmart for $15 i would get taxed $1.50. If some rich person wants designer name brand jeans and spends $200 they will get taxed $20. I think it's more fair and much simpler than now.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

They would not be taxed exclusively. Everyone would have the same flat tax rates. People who spend more will pay more in taxes. If i buy a pair of jeans at Walmart for $15 i would get taxed $1.50. If some rich person wants designer name brand jeans and spends $200 they will get taxed $20. I think it's more fair and much simpler than now.

There you have it. And the rich would be paying more. Win-Win.

 

[Vader]

The fact is that there isn't enough money in the top 1% or even the top 10% to tax. Weren't not talking trillions of dollars. We're talking a few billions dollars. Which is nothing when the government wastes 10X that amount on bullshit. Just a few examples over the years:

1. Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

2. The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters

3. The Pentagon recently spent $998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida.

4. Over half of all farm subsidies go to commercial farms, which report average household incomes of $200,000.

5. A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns.

6.The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

7. Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted $20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.

8. More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.

9. Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches -- even as this new sand washes back into the ocean

10. The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.

And that's just a small portion of the **** that goes on in Washington. I wouldn't send them another ******* dime from anyone until they clean that **** up. I don't want to hear a damn thing about the rich not paying their fair share because it has NOTHING to do with the government not having enough money. It's just a way to punish rich people and to campaign for more spending and waste. It's also a political wedge to get votes from uneducated dups that think taxing Richie Rich will make their lives better when the truth is it makes Washington's lives better.

 

[Troglodyte]

Well, while I see your argument and agree with it to a point ( genetics are a major factor ), I have to disagree with the premise that medicine has not progressed by leaps and bounds.

Oh, it has, no doubt. But in some areas much more than others. Drugs, trauma, outpatient procedures, etc. But it still has it's limitations. Some diagnoses are still a virtual death sentence, some conditions can't be helped.

 

[MT~Forged]

But we now have Boner pills and Botox.

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

The fact is that there isn't enough money in the top 1% or even the top 10% to tax. Weren't not talking trillions of dollars. We're talking a few billions dollars. Which is nothing when the government wastes 10X that amount on bullshit. Just a few examples over the years:

1. Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

2. The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters

3. The Pentagon recently spent $998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida.

4. Over half of all farm subsidies go to commercial farms, which report average household incomes of $200,000.

5. A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns.

6.The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

7. Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted $20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.

8. More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.

9. Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches -- even as this new sand washes back into the ocean

10. The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.

And that's just a small portion of the **** that goes on in Washington. I wouldn't send them another ******* dime from anyone until they clean that **** up. I don't want to hear a damn thing about the rich not paying their fair share because it has NOTHING to do with the government not having enough money. It's just a way to punish rich people and to campaign for more spending and waste. It's also a political wedge to get votes from uneducated dups that think taxing Richie Rich will make their lives better when the truth is it makes Washington's lives better.

Damn u Washington, who wants sober hookers?

 

[Troglodyte]

Damn u Washington, who wants sober hookers?

On the contrary, nothing worse than realizing the chick you're about to hook up with is too drunk.

 

[ark steel]

On the contrary, nothing worse than realizing the chick you're about to hook up with is too drunk.

If you have seen what I look like, you would realize that is a prerequisite....

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

Getting laid for a bottle of middle shelf vodka, only D.C. Could ruin the free enterprise system.

 

[jitter77]

The fact is that there isn't enough money in the top 1% or even the top 10% to tax. Weren't not talking trillions of dollars. We're talking a few billions dollars. Which is nothing when the government wastes 10X that amount on bullshit. Just a few examples over the years:

1. Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

2. The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters

3. The Pentagon recently spent $998,798 shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida.

4. Over half of all farm subsidies go to commercial farms, which report average household incomes of $200,000.

5. A GAO audit found that 95 Pentagon weapons systems suffered from a combined $295 billion in cost overruns.

6.The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.

7. Washington will spend $126 million in 2009 to enhance the Kennedy family legacy in Massachusetts. Additionally, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) diverted $20 million from the 2010 defense budget to subsidize a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute.

8. More than $13 billion in Iraq aid has been classified as wasted or stolen. Another $7.8 billion cannot be accounted for.

9. Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches -- even as this new sand washes back into the ocean

10. The Defense Department wasted $100 million on unused flight tickets and never bothered to collect refunds even though the tickets were refundable.

And that's just a small portion of the **** that goes on in Washington. I wouldn't send them another ******* dime from anyone until they clean that **** up. I don't want to hear a damn thing about the rich not paying their fair share because it has NOTHING to do with the government not having enough money. It's just a way to punish rich people and to campaign for more spending and waste. It's also a political wedge to get votes from uneducated dups that think taxing Richie Rich will make their lives better when the truth is it makes Washington's lives better.

I agree washington throws away money like water, but I dont understand what you mean when you say that there isnt enough money in the top 1% or 10% to tax. Everyone is getting taxed not just the top 10%. Are you saying people wont spend enough money in general with the flat tax?

 

[ark steel]

I agree washington throws away money like water, but I dont understand what you mean when you say that there isnt enough money in the top 1% or 10% to tax. Everyone is getting taxed not just the top 10%. Are you saying people wont spend enough money in general with the flat tax?

I believe, he is saying that if you taxed that group 100%, you wouldn't make a dent in the annual spending of DC. Not commenting on the flat tax.