Retirement-Savings Cap?

[evilanne]

Again, check back with us in 20 years. Kudos for you in being 100% Roth.

Have you ever itemized deductions on your income tax? Have you taken any deductions or credits other than standard deduction & exemption? If so why?

[Aitrus]

Reducing taxes on the poor is not a government aid program. Actually, it just gets the government out of the way so they can help themselves, which is exactly what you are advocating for. But in this scenario, we can only afford to give them that tax break if we enact the inheritance tax.

An inheritance is definitely income. You are born with nothing. If a family member dies and you inherit their wealth, you just got a whole lot of income all at once. It has nothing to do with a Congressman's definition. It is the mathematical definition of income.

The only difference between earned income and inheritance income is that the laborer pays taxes and the heir doesn't. That doesn't make any sense.

The inheritance tax does not tax the deceased. Once you earn your wealth and pay income tax on it, we aren't going to tax it again. And when you croak, you can leave 100% of it to whoever you like. But it is income to them, so it needs to be taxed.

How about reducing the size of the government to levels where it could be funded without any income taxes at all? In other words, what the Constitution authorizes, and no more? That would solve all these problems of whether or not inheritance / property is income. An income tax insinuates that the government owns the people and their labor.

[evilanne]

How about reducing the size of the government to levels where it could be funded without any income taxes at all? In other words, what the Constitution authorizes, and no more? That would solve all these problems of whether or not inheritance / property is income. An income tax insinuates that the government owns the people and their labor.

Theoretically, I agree, but we all know that we are too far down this path to completely turn back now. There was no income tax for more than half of USA's existence.

[mmmmmbeer]

An income tax insinuates that the government owns the people and their labor.

And property tax lends that the government inherently owns all property, thus we need to pay for it's usage.

[Aitrus]

Exactly. Either I own my property, or I don't. Either I have property rights, or I don't. This extends to all my property, whether it be land, possessions, or money.

[mjedlin66]

How about reducing the size of the government to levels where it could be funded without any income taxes at all? In other words, what the Constitution authorizes, and no more? That would solve all these problems of whether or not inheritance / property is income. An income tax insinuates that the government owns the people and their labor.

Theoretically, I agree, but we all know that we are too far down this path to completely turn back now. There was no income tax for more than half of USA's existence.

There were also no aircraft carriers, foreign military bases, interstate highways, airports, national park service, consumer finance protection bureau, I could go on.

I am all for slicing the military budget in half and closing most of our foreign bases, but that is not a popular position among Republicans.

[mjedlin66]

An income tax insinuates that the government owns the people and their labor.

And property tax lends that the government inherently owns all property, thus we need to pay for it's usage.

And sales tax implies the government owns everything we buy. And gas tax and road tax implies the government owns our cars. And alcohol tax implies the government owns our alcohol.

Let's just shut down all taxes and close the government. There is no need to pay for rhe services we all use.

[mjedlin66]

Again, check back with us in 20 years. Kudos for you in being 100% Roth.

Have you ever itemized deductions on your income tax? Have you taken any deductions or credits other than standard deduction & exemption? If so why?

My position on the inheritance tax isn't going to change after 20 years. There are a great many political positions I hold that may change over time. But not the inheritance tax.

[sarvbill]

Reducing taxes on the poor is not a government aid program. Actually, it just gets the government out of the way so they can help themselves, which is exactly what you are advocating for. But in this scenario, we can only afford to give them that tax break if we enact the inheritance tax.

An inheritance is definitely income. You are born with nothing. If a family member dies and you inherit their wealth, you just got a whole lot of income all at once. It has nothing to do with a Congressman's definition. It is the mathematical definition of income.

The only difference between earned income and inheritance income is that the laborer pays taxes and the heir doesn't. That doesn't make any sense.

The inheritance tax does not tax the deceased. Once you earn your wealth and pay income tax on it, we aren't going to tax it again. And when you croak, you can leave 100% of it to whoever you like. But it is income to them, so it needs to be taxed.

How about reducing the size of the government to levels where it could be funded without any income taxes at all? In other words, what the Constitution authorizes, and no more? That would solve all these problems of whether or not inheritance / property is income. An income tax insinuates that the government owns the people and their labor.

But every time any legislation is proposed to reduce the government workforce or that the government workforce benefits should be cut (all paid for out of the taxes you say are being taken from you at gun point) everyone on this sites screams bloody murder. The bottom line is everyone is ok with taking someone else's benefit or subsidy but don't you dare touch mine. We have all become nothing but whiners. We want all of our benefits, but want someone else to pay for it.

Instead of complaining about the government taxing you, how about listing those things you are willing to do without, like social security and Medicare (and yes those are funded through payroll taxes), which Government jobs do you want to cut (I'm sure it's not yours), our infrastructure - roads, bridges, electrical grid, dams. power plants (all which have decayed to substandard levels), the list goes on.

We don't get all the services we have become accustomed to for free, it costs money - which the government obtains though taxation. Again, instead of complaining start being part of the solution - give up your government job that I'm paying for through taxes (and yes I have a government job also, and am retired from the Army - so my pay check for most of my life has been from the backs of you/and me tax payers).

As I have grown older (I'm now 60) I have grown more compassionate. I believe we need to take care of those in this great country that can't take care of themselves. I also believe we should balance the budget, not necessarily by cutting services, but determining which services this country wants to maintain and then be willing as taxpayer/recipients to pay for the services.

OK, I'm off my soapbox and am sure I will get slammed for my views. I just get sick of listening to people whine and complain about cuts that affect them and then turn around and complain about paying for the services and benefits they receive from paying taxes.

[Aitrus]

But every time any legislation is proposed to reduce the government workforce or that the government workforce benefits should be cut (all paid for out of the taxes you say are being taken from you at gun point) everyone on this sites screams bloody murder. The bottom line is everyone is ok with taking someone else's benefit or subsidy but don't you dare touch mine. We have all become nothing but whiners. We want all of our benefits, but want someone else to pay for it.

Instead of complaining about the government taxing you, how about listing those things you are willing to do without, like social security and Medicare (and yes those are funded through payroll taxes), which Government jobs do you want to cut (I'm sure it's not yours), our infrastructure - roads, bridges, electrical grid, dams. power plants (all which have decayed to substandard levels), the list goes on.

Gladly. Here's a reply I made to Skiehawk that I think makes my position pretty clear. In short, I would gladly do without those services and benefits that I may or may not get from paying taxes. I would rather have a fiscally stable country that will be around for our great-great-great grandchildren instead of having a country that gives benefits to a select few or that forces all to receive substandard benefits. I would prefer not have my property first taken from me only to be given back, but worth less in the form of SS, agencies that infringe on my rights, etc.

http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.p ... 706#p64706

We don't get all the services we have become accustomed to for free, it costs money - which the government obtains though taxation. Again, instead of complaining start being part of the solution - give up your government job that I'm paying for through taxes (and yes I have a government job also, and am retired from the Army - so my pay check for most of my life has been from the backs of you/and me tax payers).

As I have grown older (I'm now 60) I have grown more compassionate. I believe we need to take care of those in this great country that can't take care of themselves. I also believe we should balance the budget, not necessarily by cutting services, but determining which services this country wants to maintain and then be willing as taxpayer/recipients to pay for the services.

OK, I'm off my soapbox and am sure I will get slammed for my views. I just get sick of listening to people whine and complain about cuts that affect them and then turn around and complain about paying for the services and benefits they receive from paying taxes.

I don't mean to slam you. I'm sure many agree with you. But I don't believe that the government is the solution to this life's problems and lack of equity, rather, it is the cause of many of this life's problems and inequities. I too am compassionate, but I don't think that forcibly taking from those able to pay to care for those who can't. Two wrongs don't make a right. Instead, I prefer that we rely on charity, family ties, and the benevolence of humanity to care for those who can't care for themselves. Government agencies that do this function are only enabling those who are otherwise able to contribute to our economy and society to not do so.

As an example: My wife teaches kids in an inner city school, and some of those kids have no plans to work when they graduate. They have told her, both verbally and in "What do I want to be when I grow up" style activities, that they plan to go onto government assistance. Who can blame them? With a system like the one we currently have, it's no surprise that we now have generational dependence on welfare programs, and parents who teach their kids how to game the system.

[mjedlin66]

Taxes pay for the schools that your wife works in. A lot of people can't afford school. Locally funded school systems across the country are be definition socialism. I rarely hear someone say that we should not pay taxes so that poor kids can be educated. Even in this new voucher scheme, few people want to stop paying for schools to benefit people who can't.

The roads, the transit, the museums, the state parks, the consumer advocates, the ombudsman, the military, and many other programs are the same as the schools. Some people can't afford to pay, but that doesn't mean we are going to deprive them of those services. All of these things create more opportunity for the people. Poor people can take subsidized mass transit to work until they can afford a car. Then they drive on public roads. A lot of poor people can start careers as truck drivers relatively easily because of public infrastructure. Once they improve their own situation above a certain threshold, they start paying taxes too. But not so much as to bring them an undue burden.

I don't want a nanny state. We can talk about gutting welfare. But most of these socialized systems benefit all of society by creating more opportunity, and thus make it easier for EVERYONE to reap the benefits of capitalism.

[Aitrus]

Whoops, don't know what happened there...I was trying to quote you, and I think I accidentally edited your post instead, MJ. For us Mods, the buttons are right beside each other. Let me see if I can fix it...

Edit: Ok, I think I fixed it. I don't think I changed anything you said, but please feel free to adjust if I did. For your reference, what I accidentally did was to quote you and respond, as you see in the post following this one, but I did it via the editing function instead of the quote function. This resulted in your post changing to look like mine below. I changed it back to what I think was there before, and then made my post the correct way.

[Aitrus]

Taxes pay for the schools that your wife works in. A lot of people can't afford school. Locally funded school systems across the country are be definition socialism. I rarely hear someone say that we should not pay taxes so that poor kids can be educated. Even in this new voucher scheme, few people want to stop paying for schools to benefit people who can't.

Schools should be funded, and controlled, at the local (state or county) level. The federal government shouldn't be involved in education in any way. My wife has to deal with a ton of problems created by state level deciders who try to appease federal level requirements in order to get extra funding. Not to mention the union tactics that drive up costs so high that taxation to cover their demands is skyrocketed.

Locally funded school systems allows local parents and teachers to have a voice in what their kids learn and how they learn it, and is the exact opposite of socialism. Vouchers are a workaround to give parents more choice. If parents don't want their kids educated at the local indoctrination center run by the union, but instead prefer a private religious school or homeschooling instead, what's wrong with that?

The roads, the transit, the museums, the state parks, the consumer advocates, the ombudsman, the military, and many other programs are the same as the schools. Some people can't afford to pay, but that doesn't mean we are going to deprive them of those services. All of these things create more opportunity for the people. Poor people can take subsidized mass transit to work until they can afford a car. Then they drive on public roads. A lot of poor people can start careers as truck drivers relatively easily because of public infrastructure. Once they improve their own situation above a certain threshold, they start paying taxes too. But not so much as to bring them an undue burden.

Certain things are within the government's purview according to the Constitution. Others aren't. You are also conflating local state and federal level responsibilities. I am speaking strictly of Federal level issues. Interstate roads and military are federal level. The others are either local state / county issues, or don't need government oversight at any level. You are also mixing up "needs" with "wants" and "luxuries". A person doesn't "need" a car or a buss pass. He "needs" to travel to his job, yes, but he has legs and can walk (just like they did before the combustion engine). If he doesn't want to walk, he can skip today's McDonald's, cigarettes and beer in order to buy his own bus pass. It's not up to government to provide for those who, through their own choices, deprive themselves of things they should have prioritized and planned for.

Services of any kind not related to government operations (such as the courts, etc) cannot be justifiably subsidized by the government at any level because we are under the American system, not a European one, and we have a Constitution that grants limited powers to the government. A bus service is not related to government operations. If the government didn't run a bus service, an enterprising entrepreneur would start one. The government has no business being involved in either regulating or funding any business or service. Capitalism has a way of providing an answer when there is a need, sometimes even before the public realizes there is a need in the first place - the iPhone, for example. Politicians have no business telling us what we do and don't need. We do that ourselves through voluntary interaction and transaction, i.e. capitalism. Not to mention that government regulation limits personal liberty by restricting choice and the freedom of self determination.

I don't want a nanny state. We can talk about gutting welfare. But most of these socialized systems benefit all of society by creating more opportunity, and thus make it easier for EVERYONE to reap the benefits of capitalism.

You don't need socialistic programs for everybody to reap the benefits of capitalism. Socialized systems create a populace so dependent on the State (i.e. the country) that they willingly give the State more power in exchange for promises of being provided "essential services" by "making the rich pay their fair share" or some other wealth distribution scheme (like progressive income taxation or inheritance taxes).

You say you don't want a nanny state, but you are advocating for actions that will result in one. I believe George Orwell called that doublespeak. You advocate for social programs, which history shows has only ever served only to grow the government and enact more social programs, and eventually full-blown socialism. Socialism is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century. Why do you want more of that?

[novak]

Well spoken.

[FairfaxCo]

Seems like this is still on the table.