David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU wrote:
- quote -

Correct - and I thought that was the point that you were
making.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Way too practical.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financial.com

Moderator: I like it anyway <g
<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Victor Roberts" <xxx[at]lighting-research.com> wrote:
- quote -

Not relevant. That choice and risk is mine and mine alone
to make.

- quote -

Please don't lecture me on the principles of how insurance
works. The CLU after my name isn't just for show. Of
course if you WANT me to explain the poor rationale for
forcing everyone to participate in order to avoid adverse
selection.....

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financial.com

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU" <dwoods[at]woods-financial.com> wrote:

- quote -

Well, people who work for the government, whose wages are
paid for by taxes collected, are required to pay tax on
their incomes.

- quote -

I never said the tax code wasn't a holy mess.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

MTW" <mtwingcpa[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

When do you form your campaign committee?

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Stuart A. Bronstein" <stu[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

So in other words, it's okay to be taxed on money that will
be taxed again when you receive your share of you helped put
in to begin with. On the other hands, AFDC and SSI are not
taxed AT ALL. So I do sense a double standard here. I'm
stunned.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financial.com

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU" <dwoods[at]woods-financial.comwrote:

- quote -

First of all, how do you know that all your investments will
not go bust before you retire and we will all have to
contribute to your upkeep in your old age? (Unlikely, to be
sure, but theoretically possible.)

Your comment about health insurance is not correct in all
circumstances. The rates per individual for group health
insurance in many companies are low only because there is an
agreement that all people in the eligible group (employees)
will be covered. If the policy allowed people who felt they
did not need heath insurance to not enroll, then the rates
would be higher for those who did enroll. (Have you ever
compared the rates for non-group policies to those for group
policies?)

In this case, like Social Security, group health insurance
is a shared responsibility, with some deriving more benefits
than others depending upon their future situation. Modern
health plans do allow some flexibility in the type of
coverage purchased and the maximum benefits received. This
can be considered to be like the combination of Social
Security and 401(k)'s and IRAs. All must contribute to the
basic policy, but you can also purchase more coverage if you
like.

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

Well that would make SS taxation somewhat more consistent
with what it essentially is, a deferred annuity, albeit one
with no death benefit accumulation.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financial.com

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Moderator wrote:

- quote -

As long as I'm pointing out the "obvious," let me point out
the obvious solution: Increase the FICA tax on employees by
1% - 2%, but give them the option to place that increase
(only) in some kind of a self-directed account.

Voila! No money is diverted from the existing system, and
the burden of a tax increase is soften by a "choice"
regarding same. Many birds killed with one stone.

MTW

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU" <dwoods[at]woods-financial.com> wrote:
- quote -

Social Security is a tax, not a fund. You are not getting
"your" money back, you are getting welfare payments that
come from current tax revenues.

All federal taxes are paid with after-tax dollars. So I
don't see why this income should be treated any different
from any other.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

I'll agree with that in principle. I would also state that
its poor SOCIAL policy to mandate that people pay a fixed
percentage of their earned income in the event they "need"
the benefits, when clearly they never will. Another poster
mentioned receiving a refund of insurance premiums when
there is never a claim. The problem with that is that with
the exception of auto insurance in most states, and certain
p&c policies mandated by lien on property, insurance is an
optional item. This includes health insurance. If I never
need the benefits, I don't want to participate AND my
non-participation doesn't create a financial risk for others
(ie. Auto insurance), what possible rationale is there to
force me to contribute other than wealth transfer? In my
mind, local and state employees have it good, because they
are exempt from FICA, and participate in actual pension
plans in its place.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financial.com

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Phoebe Roberts, EA" <phoebe[at]cottagesoft.com> wrote:
- quote -

Social Security isn't a tax, now is it? Of course on the
other hand, if you don't want a government, or don't wish to
support the one we have by paying tax under the law, you
have a few options. They start with leaving and get
progressively darker from there. More to the point, social
security is supposed to be for the INDIVIDUAL. As such, it
should be UP TO the individual.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financial.com

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU wrote:
- quote -

And that argument concludes that 50% of all Social Security
benefits should be taxed, regardless of income level.
Granted, we almost had that before the current 85% amount
became law (it was 50%, but only when other income exceeded
$25K single/$32K married).

- quote -

Remember that Alan Greenspan is a economist and BANKER, not
a tax expert.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU wrote:

- quote -

For the same reason that I was forced to transfer a portion
of my wealth to support him (by paying his salary as
President). That's the whole point of taxes.

Phoebe

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"David Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU" <dwoods[at]woods-financial.com> wrote:
- quote -

The point is that any social security payments Bush receives
are not "his" until he receives them. They are simply
welfare payments made from the general fund. And so is
Medicare. I just think it's poor fiscal policy to give
welfare payments to those who don't need it.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:

- quote -

There has also been some discussion that another goal is to
create more Republican voters since people who own stock are
more likely to vote Republican - though the cause and effect
here has not been proven :-) In any case, this seems to
imply that workers would be encouraged somehow to put their
private account funds into equities instead of CDs or T
Bills.

--
Vic Roberts
Replace xxx with vdr in e-mail address.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

for a sytem that is supposed to work indefinately, that is a
pretty short period of time. To me, that is a crisis. But,
I had my retirement plan cooked up when I was ten years old.

- quote -

Why not tax EVERYBODY'S social security income? Those taxed
at a low tax rate have little to complain about.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

D.F. Manno wrote:

- quote -

Be careful of what you suggest. The AF has "things" quite a
bit more powerful than the average microwave oven. You
probably don't want the "bake" sale to be statewide!

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"D.F. Manno" <dfm2a3l0t2[at]spymac.com> wrote:
- quote -

Well. Since you decided to get snippy, let's blast apart
your comments.

1) You're right. People without children shouldn't pay
school taxes.
2) Pacifists are a bad example because they benefit from the
presence of a military whether or not they want it. Of
they could pretend to be Mr. Baldwin and leave the
country. Sorry Mr. Baldwin.
3) If you don't like local taxes, move.
4) Social security is for oneself, not everybody else. And
apparently, you don't have a problem whatsoever with the
government forcing people to protect them financially
from themselves.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financial.com

Moderator:
Did Alex Baldwin leave the U.S. or was that just trash
talk?

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Gary Goodman" <XgaryXg7X[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

For the same reason you're not taxed on 100% of all annuity
payouts. A portion of any SS benefits is the result of
taxed dollars going in. Are you seriously suggesting that
not only is the money taxed on the way in, but also on the
way out? Any politician who voted for that would have to
face me in person. Not a pretty sight. For them.

- quote -

Stunning.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Norwood, MA 02062
www.woods-financial.com

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->