"We need to raise taxes so we can have a retirement"

[just me]

Property owners here have been told we will pay for metal detectors at school now. No comment right now.
Last night on the news, they were asking to raise taxes at the BOEducation for their retirements.I can't afford to retire. I know a lot of people can't retire. I think raising taxes is not the answer. I thought it was education. Thoughts?

 

[just me]

Do the math. The ship is listing to starboard.

 

[just me]

http://www.vermonttreasurer.gov/sit...ission-work-archive/NCTR_09MayJunNL_FINAL.pdf

"The only silver lining to all of this is that while the decline in investment markets has hurt defined benefit plans, hopefully they will survive and plan participants have been protected in the short run. In defined contribution plans, however, the impact has been immediate on plan participants. Many have been forced to change retirement plans and some have seen almost all of their retirement savings disappear."

"Let’s revisit the Basic Retirement Funding Equation: C + I = B + E C = Contributions I = Investment Income B = Benefits Paid E = Expenses (administration)"

The mentality to raise taxes for the few so they can have what the most do not have will leave rich folk owning all the land. It may take awhile, but T= Percentage of income paid by Taxpayer, and G= tax dollars used to run government and pay their employees........ must not be allowed to list too far to the one side(G).

Businesses close, change the way they do things, invest in new area, fire employees, or go bankrupt. There is a red flag where G reaches too deep in T pockets.

Maybe our educational system is being attacked? The old saying, "I got mine" does not float the boat. We need new sources for funds. Too many carefree people not doing their jobs hanging out another 5 years so they can GET retirement. Do the math.
Stop TAKING from T and do your jobs within your requirements. Tighten YOUR belts....like we are having to do. I worked over 40 years, too.

If you do the math, you will find it will not continue being a source for T. Is someone trying to live beyond their means? I'm having to consolidate, move, and pray a lot....and now they want more money.

 

[Skarekrow]

Who are you blaming here?

A good start would be the return of the money Congress has “borrowed” (stolen) from programs such as Social Security - which at one point had laws to protect it from just that very thing.
Reagan and friends destroyed that.
So far they have taken an estimated $2.6 - $2.8 Trillion (this does not take into account the loss of interest from the missing money).
Money that was collected from the paychecks of working people for one purpose - not to fund the whims of Congress and lobbyists.

Before any taxes are raised, before any benefits are cut - the money of the people needs to be returned and with interest paid in full.
Certainly, the laws that once stood to protect the money from being borrowed and misused should be reinstated.

How many people lost huge chunks of their retirement savings when Bush and Co. crashed our economy and Wall St.?
Put the taxpayers on the hook while they handed out bonuses.
In fact the GOP just last week rescinded huge portions of the Dodd-Frank law to protect the taxpayer from such a thing again.
Obviously they are on the side of the common man here in the US and not in the pockets of big business.

Also those “rich folks” and corporations have an estimated $21 Trillion + stashed away in offshore accounts...effectively avoiding paying the required taxes and placing more weight on the working class.

Yes...SS is unstable...yes, it’s really difficult for people to save for anything much less retirement right now.
But there are common sense things such as returning “borrowed” SS money that does NOT belong to the government in any way shape or form - bottom line is it never was supposed to be borrowed from.
They repealed the law - and raided the coffers with no intention of repaying it.
Now when they talk about NEEDING to cut “entitlements” it’s absolute and total BS.
Those “entitlements” are called that name for a reason.

It’s not their money, nor is it their decision in regards to what it gets used it on.

 

[Pin]

Unfortunately, many of us live beyond our means, taking more than we've been making. Social Security is not your money, it's a welfare program and a tax.

 

[Stu]

Property owners here have been told we will pay for metal detectors at school now. No comment right now.
Last night on the news, they were asking to raise taxes at the BOEducation for their retirements.I can't afford to retire. I know a lot of people can't retire. I think raising taxes is not the answer. I thought it was education. Thoughts?

This irks me, I never took a job with a government entity mainly because the idea of dealing a bureaucracy as an employer was unappealing. However I do accept that the places I have lived in need to hire and pay people to do the jobs those places deem necessary. Those governments make deals with their employees in order to have that work done. Those governments were and are duly elected by their citizens so the citizens are ultimately responsible for the deals that are made. If you want to band together with like minded citizens, take over the local government and cut tax expenditures, great, go do it. But you do not get to renege on contracts made by previous governments. If you don't want to pay the taxes to cover the legitimate expense of a given municipality or governmental jurisdiction, then move.

 

[Skarekrow]

Unfortunately, many of us live beyond our means, taking more than we've been making. Social Security is not your money, it's a welfare program and a tax.

It is the money of the workers...it has been taken from their paychecks with the sole purpose of funding itself.
(It was certainly taken out of every single one of mine - with the expectation that it would be there for you when you need it to be)
It would be on stable ground now if the govt. had not illegally borrowed from it several times (Reagan, Bush Jr.) to the tune of trillions.
And those who live on SS, I would bet, certainly don’t live beyond their means.
It’s called an “entitlement” because it is just that.

 

[Lurk]

Immigration Curbs Will Weaken Social Security


"President Trump has proposed deporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants and backed curbs on legal immigration into the US. The president’s aggressive views on immigration have generated intense debate over the past year, but much of that discussion has ignored a key issue: What immigration restrictions would mean for the long-term health of Social Security.

A new study by my Urban Institute colleagues Damir Cosic and Rich Johnson finds that just one proposal—a Senate bill to reduce the number of permanent residency visas (green cards)-- would increase unfunded Social Security obligations by $1.5 trillion, or 13 percent, over the next 75 years. In the nearer term, it would accelerate by one year the date by which the Social Security trust fund is projected to be depleted—from 2034 to 2033.

Fewer workers = less payroll tax revenue

This would happen in a pretty straightforward way: The bill, introduced by senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Purdue (R-GA), would immediately reduce the number of newly-issued green cards by 41 percent, and in ten years cut the number of such new visas of half. Currently, about 1 million people are granted lawful permanent residency status each year. The measure called the RAISE Act, also would eliminate the so-called visa lottery that allows about 50,000 immigrants into the US annually and change the rules for those seeking employment-based visas to give preference to younger and better-educated workers.

The result: Damir and Rich estimate the net increase in lawful permanent residents in the US would fall from more than 800,000 annually to less than 400,000. Assuming the growth of native born workers remains steady, the RAISE Act would reduce the employed labor force by 2 million in 2030, 6 million in 2050, and 8 million in 2070. All else equal, fewer workers means less payroll tax revenue equals a bigger Social Security shortfall. Although the number of retirees would also fall, lost tax revenue from barring immigrant workers would exceed the decline in benefits paid to those workers in retirement.

One of many proposals

Some of the lost revenue would be offset by a change in the mix of green card holders. Today, about two-thirds of those granted permanent residency status are relatives of citizens or legal residents, and many come to the US with low skills. By increasing the number of younger, better educated immigrants, the RAISE Act would boost average earnings of new residents. That would offset some of the decline in payroll tax revenue, but not nearly all of it.

As a result, Damir and Rich estimate the law would reduce Social Security trust fund revenues by 0.8 percent in 2020, by 2.3 percent in 2030, and by 8 percent in 2070. However, benefits would not begin to decline significantly until 2050.

Keep in mind that this paper looks at only one of the anti-immigrant proposals on the table. Others include the president’s proposal to begin deporting in two weeks 690,000 unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children, and his proposal to deport another 300,000 Haitians and Central Americans who came to the US under a humanitarian waiver known as Temporary Protected Status. In addition, the number of the workers applying for H 1-B visas has declined by 15 percent in the past year.

Effects on personal care workers

These changes would result in a further decline in the US labor force, lower payroll tax revenues, and place additional pressure on Social Security beyond the effects of the RAISE Act.
Some supporters of immigration curbs and deportations argue that these jobs will be filled by native born Americans, thus the projected payroll tax shortfall will not materialize. However, the single biggest reason economies expand is growth in their labor force, and pulling hundreds of thousands of workers out of the US job market is counter-productive. Besides, with the economy at close to full employment and little interest among native-born people in doing the physically-demanding, low-skilled work done by many immigrants, there is no credible evidence that foreign-born workers are taking jobs from the native-born.

Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention one other consequence of immigration limits and deportation—the effects on those receiving assistance from personal care aides. In much of the US, these aides are overwhelmingly immigrants. They do difficult work for low pay and are essential to meet the needs of older adults and younger people with disabilities. And many of those aides could be deported or denied visas under the president’s immigration policies. But that’s another story for another day.

Whatever you think about the immigration debate, it is important to take into consideration what limits on entry into the US or deportations will mean for the future of Social Security."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/howard...rbs-will-weaken-social-security/#48eef5ef43e9

Stupid fuck.

 

[Lurk]

Immigration Curbs Will Weaken Social Security


"President Trump has proposed deporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants and backed curbs on legal immigration into the US. The president’s aggressive views on immigration have generated intense debate over the past year, but much of that discussion has ignored a key issue: What immigration restrictions would mean for the long-term health of Social Security.

A new study by my Urban Institute colleagues Damir Cosic and Rich Johnson finds that just one proposal—a Senate bill to reduce the number of permanent residency visas (green cards)-- would increase unfunded Social Security obligations by $1.5 trillion, or 13 percent, over the next 75 years. In the nearer term, it would accelerate by one year the date by which the Social Security trust fund is projected to be depleted—from 2034 to 2033.

Fewer workers = less payroll tax revenue

This would happen in a pretty straightforward way: The bill, introduced by senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Purdue (R-GA), would immediately reduce the number of newly-issued green cards by 41 percent, and in ten years cut the number of such new visas of half. Currently, about 1 million people are granted lawful permanent residency status each year. The measure called the RAISE Act, also would eliminate the so-called visa lottery that allows about 50,000 immigrants into the US annually and change the rules for those seeking employment-based visas to give preference to younger and better-educated workers.

The result: Damir and Rich estimate the net increase in lawful permanent residents in the US would fall from more than 800,000 annually to less than 400,000. Assuming the growth of native born workers remains steady, the RAISE Act would reduce the employed labor force by 2 million in 2030, 6 million in 2050, and 8 million in 2070. All else equal, fewer workers means less payroll tax revenue equals a bigger Social Security shortfall. Although the number of retirees would also fall, lost tax revenue from barring immigrant workers would exceed the decline in benefits paid to those workers in retirement.

One of many proposals

Some of the lost revenue would be offset by a change in the mix of green card holders. Today, about two-thirds of those granted permanent residency status are relatives of citizens or legal residents, and many come to the US with low skills. By increasing the number of younger, better educated immigrants, the RAISE Act would boost average earnings of new residents. That would offset some of the decline in payroll tax revenue, but not nearly all of it.

As a result, Damir and Rich estimate the law would reduce Social Security trust fund revenues by 0.8 percent in 2020, by 2.3 percent in 2030, and by 8 percent in 2070. However, benefits would not begin to decline significantly until 2050.

Keep in mind that this paper looks at only one of the anti-immigrant proposals on the table. Others include the president’s proposal to begin deporting in two weeks 690,000 unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children, and his proposal to deport another 300,000 Haitians and Central Americans who came to the US under a humanitarian waiver known as Temporary Protected Status. In addition, the number of the workers applying for H 1-B visas has declined by 15 percent in the past year.

Effects on personal care workers

These changes would result in a further decline in the US labor force, lower payroll tax revenues, and place additional pressure on Social Security beyond the effects of the RAISE Act.
Some supporters of immigration curbs and deportations argue that these jobs will be filled by native born Americans, thus the projected payroll tax shortfall will not materialize. However, the single biggest reason economies expand is growth in their labor force, and pulling hundreds of thousands of workers out of the US job market is counter-productive. Besides, with the economy at close to full employment and little interest among native-born people in doing the physically-demanding, low-skilled work done by many immigrants, there is no credible evidence that foreign-born workers are taking jobs from the native-born.

Finally, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention one other consequence of immigration limits and deportation—the effects on those receiving assistance from personal care aides. In much of the US, these aides are overwhelmingly immigrants. They do difficult work for low pay and are essential to meet the needs of older adults and younger people with disabilities. And many of those aides could be deported or denied visas under the president’s immigration policies. But that’s another story for another day.

Whatever you think about the immigration debate, it is important to take into consideration what limits on entry into the US or deportations will mean for the future of Social Security."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/howard...rbs-will-weaken-social-security/#48eef5ef43e9

Stupid fuck.

 

[just me]

Government owes so much to people that are retired/retiring that it is insane. My biggest problem is raising taxes on people that have no way to retire just so they can retire. Government needs to fall in line with the people. What gives them the authority to do this? Makes me feel like they don't care for the people they represent, or should be. The percentage of taxes should remain the same for retirements. If they reach too deep, they will be placing themselves in the same situation as younger people paying social security.

Many things are now being outsourced, but they must make certain it will not raise taxable percentages.

 

[Pin]

Government owes so much to people that are retired/retiring that it is insane. My biggest problem is raising taxes on people that have no way to retire just so they can retire. Government needs to fall in line with the people. What gives them the authority to do this? Makes me feel like they don't care for the people they represent, or should be. The percentage of taxes should remain the same for retirements. If they reach too deep, they will be placing themselves in the same situation as younger people paying social security.

Many things are now being outsourced, but they must make certain it will not raise taxable percentages.

Hold on! You forget that people are stupid. The government isn't going to literally raise anyone's taxes to pay for retirement. They're just going to invisibly tax us through inflation, printing more money and use that money to pay for people's retirements. Maybe they'll raise the retirement age to lower eligibility (so the country doesn't go bankrupt). When their dollar is worth less on the street, people won't put two and two together.

It's easy as pie.

 

[just me]

Many young people pay social security and are being told they will never get back any of it. Misappropriation of funds? Consider the population rate of increase, consider how much longer people are living now, consider how much money they are making compared to how much they started paying social security.

Consider a city/county paying retirement benefits for ten to fifteen years longer than they used to. I don't want to study this too much because of my limited resources, but many people draw social security and keep working to survive. They have no retirement benefits. They have no savings and investments.

When I was young, it seemed like the right thing to do to get a job with a telephone company or some large corporation that offered benefits and a retirement. I know people that get social security, retirement benefits, and still have to work. I ask a government to look at the people before they give themselves large raises and expense accounts, retirement benefits and such. There must be a way to generate more tax dollars than to keep taking from the people. It will not work like this forever.

 

[Pin]

It is the money of the workers...it has been taken from their paychecks with the sole purpose of funding itself.
(It was certainly taken out of every single one of mine - with the expectation that it would be there for you when you need it to be)
It would be on stable ground now if the govt. had not illegally borrowed from it several times (Reagan, Bush Jr.) to the tune of trillions.
And those who live on SS, I would bet, certainly don’t live beyond their means.
It’s called an “entitlement” because it is just that.

Every dollar you paid in FICA taxes is gone, either to bonds or to prior beneficiares.

 

[Stu]

we need to deport those damn bonds

 

[Lurk]

I don't believe it's true.

 

[just me]

I don't believe it's true.

May I ask what?

 

[just me]

copied from Bradford Tax Institute...

In 1913, the top tax bracket was 7 percent on all income over $500,000 ($11 million in today’s dollars1); and the lowest tax bracket was 1 percent.

2013 – 2018

The American Taxpayer RELIEF Act of 2012 increased the highest income tax rate to 39.6 percent. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act added an additional 3.8 percent on to this making the maximum federal income tax rate 43.4 percent.

 

[just me]

copied from WalletHub

Depending on where you live, property taxes can be a small inconvenience or a major burden. The average American household spends $2,197 on property taxes for their homes each year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and residents of the 27 states with vehicle property taxes shell out another $436. Considering these figures and the rising amount of debt in America, it should come as no surprise that more than $14 billion in property taxes go unpaid each year, the National Tax Lien Association has found.

 

[just me]

copied from tax-rates.org

State Sales Tax Rates [1]
View local sales taxes by state
Alabama
4%
Alaska
No Sales Tax
Arizona
5.6%
Arkansas
6.5%
California
7.5%
Colorado
2.9%
Connecticut
6.35%
Delaware
No Sales Tax
District of Columbia
5.75%
Florida
6%
Georgia
4%
Hawaii
4%
Idaho
6%
Illinois
6.25%
Indiana
7%
Iowa
6%
Kansas
6.5%
Kentucky
6%
Louisiana
4%
Maine
5.5%
Maryland
6%
Massachusetts
6.25%
Michigan
6%
Minnesota
6.88%
Mississippi
7%
Missouri
4.23%
Montana
No Sales Tax
Nebraska
5.5%
Nevada
6.85%
New Hampshire
No Sales Tax
New Jersey
7%
New Mexico
5.13%
New York
4%
North Carolina
4.75%
North Dakota
5%
Ohio
5.75%
Oklahoma
4.5%
Oregon
No Sales Tax
Pennsylvania
6%
Puerto Rico
6%
Rhode Island
7%
South Carolina
6%
South Dakota
4%
Tennessee
7%
Texas
6.25%
Utah
5.95%
Vermont
6%
Virginia
5.3%
Washington
6.5%
West Virginia
6%
Wisconsin
5%
Wyoming
4%
1. The provided sales tax rates do not account for local county or city sales taxes, sales tax exemptions, or additional state-specific sales tax laws.

 

[just me]

Guess what I'm trying to say is:

What percentage income are we allowed to keep after paying all these things plus cost of living and maintenance?