Opps, sorry about that! Fixed.

Now that I think about it, what the hell kind of plan is that? The Donut Hole Tax Plan, aka the Medicare Donut Hole? That is stupid. Isn't the problem that everyone is being treated differently? Treat everyone the same regardless of income and make it fair? How about people who are self-employed and already have to pay more tax? How about the damm AMT?

Thanks for the cite.

So, now I'm confused. What are you outraged about? Setting aside for the moment your donuts and amts.... The change proposed by the Senator, what's your opinion of it?

:cool:

Everyone should pay the exact same percentage on every dollar. problem solved.

I interpreted it as every dollar up to $102,000 (which is currently already taxed), then your dollars above that are (still) tax-free, until $250,000.

So if you make $103 thousand a year, $102 will be taxed and $1 will be tax free. If you make $252 K, you will be taxed on $102, plus $2.

read incorrectly, Clod squared me away.

We already have this problem. Some people make $1 too much to qualify for food stamps.

They don't, dude. The guy who makes $250,000+ is taxed only on the dollars above $250,000, not all the money in between 102 and 250.

I'm not saying I agree with the policy at all, I'm just saying the guy who makes $250 K is not monumentally screwed while the guy who makes $249 gets a free ride.

I guess I read it all wrong. I still don't agree with it. Everybody should pay the same amount of tax regardless of how much we make.

I guess I would just have to contract with the employer for all income to a Corp for services. Pay myself out of my Corp 100k as income, bury the rest in expenses.

I don't mind a different tax % based upon the amount of income, just make it the same for everyone. Thereby eliminating any bias.

actually you'd probably want to pay yourself a professional fee of around $40K, then take the rest of the $100K as dividend (don't want to pay self employment tax on more than necessary) then expense everything right down to turn signal replacement bulbs to the corporation. or so i've heard.

So, I have a question for you, mercy, and the rest of you. Why do we have the current situation, full amount of Social Security income tax on income up to $102k, and then no Social Security income tax on income above $102k, in the first place??!!

It seems to me that the 3% of earners above that line had enough political clout to make the exemption happen. I can easily see the advantage for someone in that position. But why would the 97% of earners below that line support such a plan? What would be the motivation for those people?

IIRC it had something to do with an expectation of return from the social security system and how many dollars per person were needed to make it a sustainable over the long term. At least that was the rationale. It, like all taxes, is just a politicians' game. Charge everyone the same percentage on every dollar earned and everyone will see a lower percentage of their pay taken, while the top earners still pay more dollars.

First let me state that a number of very good ideas have emerged to maintain the solvency of the SS system, among them all were to raise the cap. I will have to find the proposal that was most attractive, I think it was a Dem House or Senate member that proposed it. But anyway they showed that raising the cap to something like 120k ensured another 50 to 100 years of solvency. So why didn't they just do it and why was there no overwhelming support? The way I understand it, it was all politics, go figure huh...
anyway, by the time the bill made it through committee there was so much pork attached it was unpassable. Not only that, any time you have excess monies, even if they are potential monies that may exist in the future, politco's see that as a personal sump and a way to fund unfunded other stuff with a weak promise to pay it back before it is needed, but that never happens. The problem, as usual lies with Congress.