Somewhat correct, but why is it that the left can never comprehend that the easiest way to balance the budget is to control spending. As Eric Cantor is fond of saying, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
Larry Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: Leland F. Jackson, CPA To: ProFox Email List Sent: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 20:37:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [OT] Obama's redistribution plan at work The problems facing SS and Medicare are very fixable and, no doubt, will eventually be address, after addressing the more pressing problem facing the presidential candidates right now, which is the economy. Next, something must be done to balance government spending with government revenues to stop the annual deficit, which is feeding an ever growing national debt. Social Security and Medicare can be fixed, but not if the USA government goes bankrupt. LOL Regards, LelandJ Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: > That an interesting question. So far as I know, there has been no plan > to change the method used to collect the social security and Medicare > payroll taxes from the employee/employer. The tax will be deducted form > the employees payroll checks based on current rates with matching money > coming from the employer. > > The greater question is what liability exists under SS and Medicare > based on promises under the plan, and to what extent have the > promises/liabilities been funded? I don't have that information handy, > but I don't think the Social Security trust fund is fully funded, and > their may be a need to increase payroll taxes or reduce the promises > under the plan. > > Regards, > > LelandJ > > > Michael Madigan wrote: > >> Exactly, so does his plan do it? >> >> ************************************************* >> Barack Obama Antichrist gear >> >> http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike >> >> >> --- On Sun, 11/2/08, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote: >> >> >> >>> From: Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>> Subject: Re: [OT] Obama's redistribution plan at work >>> To: "ProFox Email List" >>> Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 2:54 PM >>> The payroll tax is to fund the worker's social security >>> for his >>> retirement. The money paid into SS is owned by the payer, >>> and should >>> not be used to fund government. The government is a >>> trustee of Social >>> Security fund with a fiduciary responsibility to manage the >>> funds until >>> they are needed by the individual upon retirement. It is a >>> bad idea to >>> commingle income taxes money with Social Security trust >>> funds. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> LelandJ >>> >>> >>> Michael Madigan wrote: >>> >>> >>>> They are taking federal tax money from the middle >>>> >>>> >>> class and giving it to people who pay no federal tax. >>> >>> >>>> why don't they just lower the payroll tax? >>>> >>>> ************************************************* >>>> Barack Obama Antichrist gear >>>> >>>> http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike >>>> >>>> >>>> --- On Sun, 11/2/08, Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>>> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [OT] Obama's redistribution plan >>>>> >>>>> >>> at work >>> >>> >>>>> To: "ProFox Email List" >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 2:32 PM >>>>> Really? If I didn't know you to be fair and >>>>> >>>>> >>> honest, I >>> >>> >>>>> would have >>>>> mistakenly thought you a shadowy smear monger >>>>> >>>>> >>> deliberately >>> >>> >>>>> pushing a >>>>> misleading rumor about Barack's tax policies >>>>> >>>>> >>> with the >>> >>> >>>>> intention of >>>>> manipulating voters. LOL >>>>> >>>>> #-------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Obama and Biden will cut income taxes by $1,000 >>>>> >>>>> >>> for working >>> >>> >>>>> families to >>>>> offset the payroll tax they pay. >>>>> >>>>> * *Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families:* >>>>> >>>>> >>> Obama and >>> >>> >>>>> Biden will >>>>> restore fairness to the tax code and provide >>>>> >>>>> >>> 150 >>> >>> >>>>> million workers >>>>> the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden >>>>> >>>>> >>> will create >>> >>> >>>>> a new >>>>> "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up >>>>> >>>>> >>> to $500 >>> >>> >>>>> per person, or $1,000 >>>>> per working family. The "Making Work >>>>> >>>>> >>> Pay" >>> >>> >>>>> tax credit will >>>>> completely eliminate income taxes for 10 >>>>> >>>>> >>> million >>> >>> >>>>> Americans. >>>>> * *Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making >>>>> >>>>> >>> Less than >>> >>> >>>>> $50,000:* >>>>> Barack Obama will eliminate all income >>>>> >>>>> >>> taxation of >>> >>> >>>>> seniors making >>>>> less than $50,000 per year. This proposal >>>>> >>>>> >>> will >>> >>> >>>>> eliminate income >>>>> taxes for 7 million seniors and provide >>>>> >>>>> >>> these seniors >>> >>> >>>>> with an >>>>> average savings of $1,400 each year. Under >>>>> >>>>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>>> Obama-Biden plan, >>>>> 27 million American seniors will also not >>>>> >>>>> >>> need to >>> >>> >>>>> file an income >>>>> tax return. >>>>> * *Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class >>>>> >>>>> >>> Americans:* >>> >>> >>>>> Obama and Biden >>>>> will dramatically simplify tax filings so >>>>> >>>>> >>> that >>> >>> >>>>> millions of >>>>> Americans will be able to do their taxes in >>>>> >>>>> >>> less than >>> >>> >>>>> five >>>>> minutes. Obama and Biden will ensure that >>>>> >>>>> >>> the IRS >>> >>> >>>>> uses the >>>>> information it already gets from banks and >>>>> >>>>> >>> employers >>> >>> >>>>> to give >>>>> taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms >>>>> >>>>> >>> to >>> >>> >>>>> verify, sign and >>>>> return. Experts estimate that the >>>>> >>>>> >>> Obama-Biden >>> >>> >>>>> proposal will save >>>>> Americans up to 200 million total hours of >>>>> >>>>> >>> work and >>> >>> >>>>> aggravation >>>>> and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees. >>>>> * Obama will cut income taxes on 95% of >>>>> >>>>> >>> taxpayers, (eg >>> >>> >>>>> those with >>>>> incomes below $250,000.00. His take >>>>> >>>>> >>> policies are >>> >>> >>>>> geared towards >>>>> helping the working middle class, as >>>>> >>>>> >>> management, CEO, >>> >>> >>>>> wealthy >>>>> individuals, and big corporations can pretty >>>>> >>>>> >>> well >>> >>> >>>>> take care of >>>>> themselves. >>>>> >>>>> #---------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> LelandJ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Michael Madigan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Pay attention. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Obama plan is to raise the rates on the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> upper >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> middle-class and then send a check to someone who >>>>> doesn't pay any federal taxes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> That's not a prgressive tax, that's a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> redistribution of income. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> ************************************************* >>> >>> >>>>>> Barack Obama Antichrist gear >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- On Sun, 11/2/08, Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Leland F. Jackson, CPA >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OT] Obama's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> redistribution plan >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> at work >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> To: "ProFox Email List" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 2:08 PM >>>>>>> A progressive income tax is not really >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> giving my >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> money away >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> to someone >>>>>>> else. Its about how much each person pays >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> in >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> income tax >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> for government >>>>>>> services received. Under a progressive >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> income >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> tax, the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> greater my >>>>>>> income, the greater my contribution to the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> government, but >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> then the >>>>>>> greater my income, the greater the value >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> of the >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> government >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> services I >>>>>>> receive. This is only fair; since, the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> wealthiest >>> >>> >>>>>>> individual receive >>>>>>> more benefits from the government, than >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> say >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> someone working >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> for a >>>>>>> minimum wage that really doesn't have >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> that >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> much to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> lose. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've heard a lot of bitching and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> complaining >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> about how >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> complex and >>>>>>> taxing the current system is with many >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> calling for >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> a flat >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> tax where >>>>>>> everybody pay a flat percentage of their >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> income to >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Uncle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Sam. The >>>>>>> amount of tax paid under a flat tax >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> increases as >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> the income >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> level of the >>>>>>> individual increases, but the rate of tax >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> remain >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> the same >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> based on the >>>>>>> tax as a percentage of income. Well, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> let's >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> really make >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> thing simple and >>>>>>> have everyone pay a flat $1,000 tax; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> period. Now >>> >>> >>>>>>> wouldn't that be >>>>>>> simple. There wouldn't even be a need >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> to file >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> an >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> income tax return; >>>>>>> since, the amount of income a person >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> earned would >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> not be >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> relevant to the >>>>>>> tax calculation. Under such a tax, the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> homeless >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> guy who >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> has zero income >>>>>>> and Bill Gates who earns billions would >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> both be >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> required to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> pay $1,000 >>>>>>> in taxes. With something over 300 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> million people >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> in the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> USA, this >>>>>>> would theoretically bring in about 3 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> trillion in >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> tax >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> revenue each year. >>>>>>> See how simple it gets. However, is a >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> flat amount >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> tax >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> fair? I'll >>>>>>> answer my own question. It's not only >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> unfair, >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> it not a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> viable system >>>>>>> and would quickly wreck our economy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although a flat rate tax as a percentage >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> of income >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> is not >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> as extreme as >>>>>>> a flat amount tax, they are both unfair >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> and >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> difficult to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> administer; >>>>>>> because, people in different income level >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> have >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> very >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> different needs. I >>>>>>> suppose an entire book could be written on >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> this >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> subject, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> including the >>>>>>> concept of diminishing return as it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> applies to >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> income >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> level, but I don't >>>>>>> have time to get into that today, but >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> saying >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Senator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Obama's tax plan is >>>>>>> a tax give of anyones income by government >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> distribution is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> not true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The progressive tax system in the USA has >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> served >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Americans >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> well over >>>>>>> many, many, year, so why change a good >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> thing. The >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Bush >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Administration >>>>>>> change in tax policy adversely affected >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> the USA >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> economy to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> the point >>>>>>> that America is now in a recession, and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> the Bush >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> tax >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> changes resulted in >>>>>>> a economic stimulus package to returned >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> millions >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> of income >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> tax dollars >>>>>>> back to the American people, so they had >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> enough >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> reward in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> the GDP to >>>>>>> participate by consuming some of the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> products they >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> labored >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> so hard to >>>>>>> produce. Remember, the American consumer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> helps >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> drive the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> economy, and >>>>>>> helps to create the wealth held in the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> hand of big >>> >>> >>>>>>> Corporations, >>>>>>> management, and super wealthy individuals, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> and the >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> bulk of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> consumption >>>>>>> of good is service takes place by middle >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> income >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> folks. LOL >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Senator >>>>>>> Obama's suggested tax policy is just >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> to return >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> the tax >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> system back to a >>>>>>> point where it is balanced and functioning >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> again. >>> >>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LelandJ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No kidding today on my way to lunch I >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> passed a >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> homeless guy with a sign that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> read 'Vote Obama, I need the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> money.' I >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> laughed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I got into the restaurant and again no >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> kidding >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> my >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> server had on a 'Obama 08' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> tie, again I laughed as he had given >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> away his >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> political preference--just >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> imagine the coincidence. >>>>>>>> When the bill came I decided not to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> tip the >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> server and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> explained to him that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was exploring the Obama >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> redistribution of >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> wealth >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> concept. He stood there >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> disbelief while I told him that I was >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> going to >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> redistribute his tip to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> someone who I deemed more in need--the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> homeless guy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> outside. The server >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> angrily stormed from my sight. >>>>>>>> I went outside, gave the homeless guy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> $10 and >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> told him >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> to thank the server >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> inside as I 've decided he could >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> use the >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> money >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> more. The homeless guy was >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> grateful. >>>>>>>> At the end of my rather unscientific >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> redistribution >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> experiment I realized >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the homeless guy was grateful for the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> money he >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> did not >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> earn, but the waiter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> was pretty angry that I gave away the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> money he >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> did >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> earn even though the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> actual recipient needed money more. >>>>>>>> I guess redistribution of wealth is an >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> easier >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> thing to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> swallow in concept >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> than in practical application. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You might try this experiment yourself >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
