Income Through Investment

[DustyInfinity]

I see comments where many on the left consider investment a tax loophole. I always thought it was odd to go after people saving money. This is the primary way working class people generate wealth as well. It is the key to avoid paycheck to paycheck lifestyle. How much money should the government confiscate from investment? Does the left want people to live from check to check in a government services umbrella?

 

[DustyInfinity]

To make a long story short. Isn't a consumption tax the obvious solution. Instead of going after saving, let people get ahead and tax consumption.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I have a better idea. Keep your hands off of my investments, before and after my death.
You tax enough of my money to begin with...

 

[candycorn]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

 

[Thunk]

When you tax something you get less of it.
When you subsidize something you get more of it.

When you tax productivity you will get less productivity.
When you subsidize poverty you will get more poverty!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And most on the right oppose higher wages and greater benefits; they approve of the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome as an ‘incentive’ to promote hard work and productivity.

According to wrongheaded conservative dogma, if one wants higher wages and greater benefits, he should quit his current job and find an employer who will provide him with both – don’t seek out higher wages and greater benefits one doesn’t deserve through ‘collectivism.’

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that.

It's probably because unions suck.

SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

If a rich guy pays double the taxes he does now he'd get (almost) double the benefits.
How would that fix the system?

 

[candycorn]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that.

It's probably because unions suck.

Oh…okay

SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

If a rich guy pays double the taxes he does now he'd get (almost) double the benefits.
How would that fix the system?

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

 

[MarathonMike]

I see comments where many on the left consider investment a tax loophole. I always thought it was odd to go after people saving money. This is the primary way working class people generate wealth as well. It is the key to avoid paycheck to paycheck lifestyle. How much money should the government confiscate from investment? Does the left want people to live from check to check in a government services umbrella?

The last thing Leftists want is financially independent citizens. That is antithetical to State control. It really is as simple as that. Passive income streams are absolutely a path to independence for working people. My wife and I did it and we know many more that have also. And no, the government should not penalize passive income and yes a consumption tax would be the most fair tax solution. That will never happen because of the massive industry that suckles off of the 70,000 page IRS tax code.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that.

It's probably because unions suck.

Oh…okay

SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

If a rich guy pays double the taxes he does now he'd get (almost) double the benefits.
How would that fix the system?

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Enlighten me.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

Doesn't taxing consumers make more sense than taxing investment? Increasing immediate purchasing power doesn't help if you then have to give any savings away.

 

[CWayne]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

The paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome has nothing to do with the amount of the paycheck.

You could mandate that employers pay $2k a week to their employees, and inside a month, the same employees who were living paycheck-to-paycheck before will once again be living that way.

Unions, in the private sector, have their uses. Unions in the public sector need to be outlawed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

The paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome has nothing to do with the amount of the paycheck.

You could mandate that employers pay $2k a week to their employees, and inside a month, the same employees who were living paycheck-to-paycheck before will once again be living that way.

Unions, in the private sector, have their uses. Unions in the public sector need to be outlawed.

Unions in the public sector need to be outlawed.

Yes! Immediately.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

The paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome has nothing to do with the amount of the paycheck.

You could mandate that employers pay $2k a week to their employees, and inside a month, the same employees who were living paycheck-to-paycheck before will once again be living that way.

Unions, in the private sector, have their uses. Unions in the public sector need to be outlawed.

Agreed to an extent. Although I think pubsec unions should be restrained, not outlawed.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that.

It's probably because unions suck.

Oh…okay

SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

If a rich guy pays double the taxes he does now he'd get (almost) double the benefits.
How would that fix the system?

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Enlighten me.

Todays contributors fund today’s recipients

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that.

It's probably because unions suck.

Oh…okay

SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

If a rich guy pays double the taxes he does now he'd get (almost) double the benefits.
How would that fix the system?

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Enlighten me.

Todays contributors fund today’s recipients

And if todays contributors build up a bigger benefit, you've delayed, but not prevented, the
future collapse.

 

[candycorn]

Not sure about the entire “left” whatever that is but what most on the left want are higher wages and greater benefits to stop the paycheck-to-paycheck syndrome. Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that. Unions have their issues but empowerment of labor is worth the detractions in my view.

As for the consumption tax, taxing a class of people known as “consumers” is probably not the best way to empower consumers.

Here’s an idea. SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that.

It's probably because unions suck.

Oh…okay

SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

If a rich guy pays double the taxes he does now he'd get (almost) double the benefits.
How would that fix the system?

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Enlighten me.

Todays contributors fund today’s recipients

And if todays contributors build up a bigger benefit, you've delayed, but not prevented, the
future collapse.

Unlikely.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Stronger unions lead to both. So it begs the question why most republicans are against that.

It's probably because unions suck.

Oh…okay

SS contributions are capped. Meaning that after you contribute a certain amount, you do not have that money taken out of your paycheck any longer. Remove that cap.

If a rich guy pays double the taxes he does now he'd get (almost) double the benefits.
How would that fix the system?

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Enlighten me.

Todays contributors fund today’s recipients

And if todays contributors build up a bigger benefit, you've delayed, but not prevented, the
future collapse.

Unlikely.

What is unlikely?

 

[candycorn]

Oh…okay


Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Enlighten me.

Todays contributors fund today’s recipients

And if todays contributors build up a bigger benefit, you've delayed, but not prevented, the
future collapse.

Unlikely.

What is unlikely?

Collapse of the system based on more investment being put into the system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Uhhh..you must not know how social security works.

Enlighten me.

Todays contributors fund today’s recipients

And if todays contributors build up a bigger benefit, you've delayed, but not prevented, the
future collapse.

Unlikely.

What is unlikely?

Collapse of the system based on more investment being put into the system.

More money coming in won't cause it to collapse, but more money going out isn't helpful.