<p>"The ceiling has never made any sense to me. Tax time makes me sick these days because I notice how little we are paying in taxes compared to a few years ago. </p>
<p>You think I’m kidding? No, I’m not."</p>
<p>Tax time makes me sick because I’m paying so much. The taxes in New York State/City are monstrous. The fees are pretty grotesque as well.</p>
<p>“But still, I don’t think Obama has what it takes to deal with the middle east, which is why I support Hillary.”</p>
<p>Huh? What experience or plan does Hillary have over Obama that makes her better able to “deal with the middle east”? Any specific examples?</p>
<p>VP–it’s so easy for people to gripe about taxes. Kudos to you for putting others first (there are an awful lot of folks out there who would love to be in the position of those who “pay too much.”)</p>
<p>" Kudos to you for putting others first (there are an awful lot of folks out there who would love to be in the position of those who “pay too much.”)"</p>
<p>They could get second jobs like we did and then they could pay too much while making the best lives for their kids, just like we do! Great country America, isn’t it? We can make money by working hard, Yes We Can!!</p>
<p>“it’s not fancy speeches. It’s knock down, drag out compromises made in back rooms over miniscule details. It’s really quite boring and I’m not sure he’s ever settled in enough in Illinois or DC to realize that.”</p>
<p>Have you ever read a law review? Do you know how law reviews are put together?</p>
<p>We’re talking about multi-day, cut-throat, fights to the death between bitter factions…about comma placement. The Harvard Law Review in particular sets the comma-placement rules for the entire legal profession through its control of the “Blue Book,” the Bible of legal citation. Boring details are the beginning, middle, and end of law review life.</p>
<p>I’m not exaggerating.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Thanks but your compliments are misdirected. I always put myself first. I have a selfish interest in shared peace and prosperity. I have a selfish interest in protecting the environment. I have a selfish interest in letting the working middle class pay proportionately <em>less</em> in taxes and get better benefits. I have a selfish interest in living in a country that values education, science, health care and does not drive people to work second and third jobs just to make ends meet. It is all in my own self interest.</p>
<p>I believe this is the type of logic that has led a lot of the affluent people and highly educated people to support Obama, knowing full well that it will mean higher taxes. How refreshing to find a candidate who actually promises to raise certain taxes.</p>
<p>My fear, however, is that he - being a rightwing Democrat - will raise the Social Security tax by simply increasing the cap, say to $200,000. This will be simply (another) regressive tax against those in the $100,000-$200,000 range, rather than a straight-line tax (still unprogressive) on income.</p>
<p>Okay, VP! Your kind of selfishness certainly appeals to me!:)</p>
<p>If the social security cap is raised (good) or eliminated (better), I would hope that safeguards are in place to make sure the money is only used to fund social security benefits. I don’t want the government to do to the American people what so many companies have done to retiree’s defined benefits pension plans. That has got to be one of the most shameful moments in the history of our country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you check out the history of the speeches and positions, the “ceiling” is bipartisan. Even Ted Kennedy spoke out in favor of a cap; the reason being is that SS still has a (barely) positive return from an actuarial standpoint. If the cap is raised further, the higher income earners will then have a negative return. While many realize that federal tax money is fungible, that ‘negative return’ puts SS into the same boat as every other welfare program – Teddy (and other SS supporters) have been trying to avoid doing that.</p>
<p>For 70 years, African-American wage owners have had a “negative return”. Where ya been?</p>
<p>Raising taxes on the super wealthy is one thing. What about college expenses? I’m in that dreaded $100-200K range where there is no financial assistance. Kids from my daughter’s high school pay nothing and I am getting socked (similar students). I’m OK with that but now I have to pay more taxes also? How about making the college aid system “more proportional” also?</p>
<p>Bailey I’m in the same boat and what I would like would be for the government at every level to recognize that this is MY money, not theirs. It’s not about letting me keep what they deem to be an appropriate amount, it’s about taking only what is needed and treating it respectfully. THere is no reason on God’s earth for taxes to go up with the runaway spending in this country. Cut that spending. All I want is for politicians to get their hands out of my wallet and let me live my life as I see fit. I donate A LOT of money and even more of my time, as do many conservatives, a group that has a high level of giving, so I’m personally generous as opposed to letting the government suck other people dry to do it for me. NO MORE TAXES!</p>
<p>For every person like you, zoosermom (who I commend for your donations), there are folks like my inlaws… lifelong conservatives who won’t give their time or money to any worthy cause or group. I have never heard them mention, in 22 years of knowing them, a donation of time or money. They will spend money on their extended family and themselves, that’s it.</p>
<p>mini:</p>
<p>Everyone with a shorter-than-average life span has a negative return. And, everyone with a longer-than-average life span has a more positive return = Actuarial Science 101. </p>
<p>But, that wasn’t Teddy’s point about the politics of making SS a clear welfare program; think about it. :)</p>
<p>10-0 - has won Hawaii!</p>
<p>“For every person like you, zoosermom (who I commend for your donations), there are folks like my inlaws… lifelong conservatives who won’t give their time or money to any worthy cause or group. I have never heard them mention, in 22 years of knowing them, a donation of time or money. They will spend money on their extended family and themselves, that’s it.”</p>
<p>I live and work in a very liberal city and volunteer with several well-known charities. Most of the people I volunteer with are not liberals. The point being that MOST people in the country don’t volunteer, political affiliation aside, so I could just as well say that my neighbors, boss, friends don’t do anything for anyone but themselves and they’re all liberals.</p>
<p>StickerShock: Oh. My. God. “Cringe-inducing” is an understatement.</p>
<p>zoosermom, my anecdote was not meant as a slam on any political persuasion. Personally I volunteer with one group of very conservative women and another group of very liberal folks… so I know it works both ways. Volunteerism is mostly dependent on level of education and income as seen here:</p>
<p>[Volunteering</a> in the United States, 2007](<a href=“http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm]Volunteering”>Volunteering in the United States, 2015)</p>
<p>Some studies indicate that conservatives participate more in charitable activities than others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[America</a> the charitable: a few surprises | csmonitor.com](<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1127/p01s01-usec.html]America”>America the charitable: a few surprises - CSMonitor.com)</p>
<p>But when “only” 29% of people are choosing to give back, there is room for government to dip into our incomes to address problems (and not just for the working poor, but environment, public education, college aid, etc…). I’m sure you already agree, it’s just a matter of which ceiling or level… how much dipping, accountability, etc…</p>
<p>“But when “only” 29% of people are choosing to give back, there is room for government to dip into our incomes to address problems”</p>
<p>I’m sorry but I don’t agree, at least in the context of 2008 USA, that there should be any more dipping. There is much too much dipping for things other than necessities, and many of those necessities should be addressed at the local level. My deeply-help belief is that federal government should only take what it needs to do the very limited things that it should be doing, AND with the spending being as out of control, there should be absolutely no consideration of raising taxes. Cut spending and make do.</p>