Investing in precious metals 101

Tax?

  • Wed, Mar 09, 2011 - 04:15pm

    #23

    darbikrash

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 297

    count placeholder

    Tax?

[quote=goes211]

Darbikrash,

How much is enough?  Will another 13% of the “rich” really satiate your and your ilk’s thirst for more?  If so for how long?  How is what you are advocating really different from “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?  Surely you realize that the truly weathy (Kennedy’s, Heinz Kerry’s, ….) can control their incomes via trusts, municiple bonds, capital gains.  Taxing income just hurst those in the middle (professionals, small business owners, …) that are trying to accumulate enough capital to move up into the upper classes, and yet the best you can think up is to tax INCOME/LABOR higher? 

Why is income/labor taxed at all? 

[/quote]

Goes211, I think your arguments are off point. Unless your name is Rip Van Winkle and you’ve just come out of a 30 year slumber, the issue here is people such as Yron Brook (in the video) are  trying to convince Americans to abandon a system they have paid their own hard earned money (as well as their employers) into for 75 years, and prepare to forfeit these funds, on the basis of an ideological position. This is not a discussion of taxation- in direct contradiction to what Mr. Brooks would have you believe.

You have to be dumb as a bag of hammers to buy into that nonsense. No amount of propaganda and slick, pensive sales promoters interspersed with the illusion of Tea Party members with raised fists, chanting on the success of their mock proletariat mission, which is, to convince themselves to forfeit their own money, is going to get me to embrace a nutty ideological notion that means I give up 30 years of contributions.

Everyone who paid in had better be getting what they were promised. And if that simple premise is somehow ideologically offensive to you, the mere thought of involuntary contributions to a retirement fund in order to stave off tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans from living on the streets, and then these horrendous costs forced onto the rest of us to pick up the burden, well then consider the self serving side of that calculus and perhaps that will ease the Randian conscience.

Consider:

1.)    The interest rate on passbook savings and CD’s is well below 1%, in some cases less than .5%. Effectively a zero income propostion.

2.)    Most retirees have counted on interest income from savings to augment there SS payments, and these income projections have been decimated. There is no meaningful opportunity for income based on savings anyomore.

3.)    The eligibility age for SS benefits is steadily increasing, widening the gap between when the income projections were initially made and the onset of benefits.

4.)    This means for many, working long into their sixties, which is fine (?) for white collar positions, totally unrealistic for jobs with physical labor.

This is real, goes211, not some hyperbolic theory based on a construct of wishful thinking. How are you going to fix this? If you take something away, what, precisely, are you going to replace it with? And please no,Objectivist and moralistic lectures on saving for the future.

The interest income counted on by millions of workers and retirees has been stolen to pay for the financial crisis, initiated and profited on by the bankers. And yes, someone has to make up the difference. And its time to get off the Libertarian soapbox and make some adult decisions, independent of ideology:

Who’s going to pay?

The elderly, retirees, and workers? Or the people who instigated this. If you don’t like the comment about raising the $106K limit, propose another method that more completely attributes reconciliation to those that caused this.

But don’t frame this as some type of communist or socialist takeover.

Real money has been stolen, and someone is going to have to pay. Who?