ADVERTISEMENT

The rich should pay a veteran's tax

HighStickHarry

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Apr 21, 2006
36,350
45,950
113
Since rich people's kids disproportionately do not serve in the military a "total worth tax" should be collected on each year's return to pay for a health care that is above and beyond a basic expectation.

I don't know what the numbers are maybe we have a nerd that can Calculate this.

Just a stab but everyone worth over 5 million dollars pays .1% or .25% per year.

If you have one child that serves in the military you are exempt for life.
 
Since rich people's kids disproportionately do not serve in the military a "total worth tax" should be collected on each year's return to pay for a health care that is above and beyond a basic expectation.

I don't know what the numbers are maybe we have a nerd that can Calculate this.

Just a stab but everyone worth over 5 million dollars pays .1% or .25% per year.

If you have one child that serves in the military you are exempt for life.
A property tax on their cash? Interesting.

Since we are expected now to take care of people cradle to grave, I think the top income tax bracket should be about 50% on any income/increase in wealth of $1 million/year. No deductions.
 
Last edited:
I'm all in on socialism. Any income above $1,000,000 per year for single filers and $1,500,000 for married filers should be confiscated by the government and be shared with all taxpayers who earn less than $100,000 single and $150,000 married. Those in the middle do just fine. This is a bold plan for wealth redistribution, but let's take the bullshit spinner out and see how much the liberal elite really buy into income equality.

I have no idea how this fits in with the OP or previous reply. I'm just mentally feeding the ducks here.
 
I know the above were tongue and cheek, but property tax is already a wealth tax.

In Oklahoma,
Person A: Owns a 1 acre lot and they pay $500 in property tax. Person B: Owns a 1 acre lot and builds a 5K square foot home. They pay $15k in property tax.

Person A: Doesn't spend money to upgrade the lot. So government gets nothing from sales tax; no income tax from money spent on contractors; and no taxes and fees for services.
However, they get rewarded with a very low property tax even though their lot is the exact same size and Person B.

It's bass-ackwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OSUIvan
I know the above were tongue and cheek, but property tax is already a wealth tax.

In Oklahoma,
Person A: Owns a 1 acre lot and they pay $500 in property tax. Person B: Owns a 1 acre lot and builds a 5K square foot home. They pay $15k in property tax.

Person A: Doesn't spend money to upgrade the lot. So government gets nothing from sales tax; no income tax from money spent on contractors; and no taxes and fees for services.
However, they get rewarded with a very low property tax even though their lot is the exact same size and Person B.

It's bass-ackwards.
The 5k square foot home adds value to the lot. If that lot sells, it's worth a bunch more than the empty lot. Property tax is assessed on the overall value of the property, not just the dirt that comprises the lot.

So yes, you are correct. You're getting taxed on stuff you've already been taxed on. Like being taxed for money you contribute to Social Security and then getting taxed on the money you receive from Social Security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
I know the above were tongue and cheek, but property tax is already a wealth tax.

In Oklahoma,
Person A: Owns a 1 acre lot and they pay $500 in property tax. Person B: Owns a 1 acre lot and builds a 5K square foot home. They pay $15k in property tax.

Person A: Doesn't spend money to upgrade the lot. So government gets nothing from sales tax; no income tax from money spent on contractors; and no taxes and fees for services.
However, they get rewarded with a very low property tax even though their lot is the exact same size and Person B.

It's bass-ackwards.
And since a mortgage company technically owns the lot and house until the mortgage is paid, why doesn't the mortgage company pay the property tax? I'm going to pose this question to my mortgage company. They are top rated in customer satisfaction so they better do me right. I can 1 star vote their ass if they aren't careful.
 
And since a mortgage company technically owns the lot and house until the mortgage is paid, why doesn't the mortgage company pay the property tax? I'm going to pose this question to my mortgage company. They are top rated in customer satisfaction so they better do me right. I can 1 star vote their ass if they aren't careful.

Because "you own it" until you f-up and can't pay for it.:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
On a roll today! You own the property, the mortgage company holds a lien such that if you fail to repay the loan the can take possession of the collateral.
Lighten up Francis. Twas a joke. Noted that you had no issue with my wealth redistribution plan though. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
Ummm.... that doesn't actually happen. But if it did your point would be valid. I guess.
Then what does happen? Money that goes to Social Security doesn't lower my taxable income like my 457 does. And when I'm old enough to receive benefits, I may very well have to pay federal taxes on up to 85% of my annual benefit depending on my income from other sources. The SSA even has a calculator to assist you with quarterly federal tax payments on Social Security income. What is it I'm missing?
 
Then what does happen? Money that goes to Social Security doesn't lower my taxable income like my 457 does. And when I'm old enough to receive benefits, I may very well have to pay federal taxes on up to 85% of my annual benefit depending on my income from other sources. The SSA even has a calculator to assist you with quarterly federal tax payments on Social Security income. What is it I'm missing?
Your AGI which you pay income taxes on is net of FICA in so far as the 6.2% contribution of your employer is not included in the W-2 and as such offsets the 6.2% withheld.

To think of SSI as an investment account is misleading, it is a tax, matched by your employer.
 
Then what does happen? Money that goes to Social Security doesn't lower my taxable income like my 457 does. And when I'm old enough to receive benefits, I may very well have to pay federal taxes on up to 85% of my annual benefit depending on my income from other sources. The SSA even has a calculator to assist you with quarterly federal tax payments on Social Security income. What is it I'm missing?
You can be taxed on social security benefits.

I thought ss payments were deducted for your taxable income (maybe they are if you're self-employed like my wife and that's why I was confused), but I believe you are correct that they are not for employees. So if I make $100k and pay $7k for fica my federal tax is determined on $100k, not $93k.

I'm a cpa but not a tax guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
I'm a cpa but not a tax guy.

From one kindred spirit to another, debits on the left and credits on the right. And while I'm doing my accounting "Oscar" acceptance speech, I'd like to thank W.T. Anderson, Lanny Chasteen (I was his grad ass't), G Michael Crooch, George Krull, Flaherty, Dale "yawn" Armstrong, etc. ............ :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeak
From one kindred spirit to another, debits on the left and credits on the right. And while I'm doing my accounting "Oscar" acceptance speech, I'd like to thank W.T. Anderson, Lanny Chasteen (I was his grad ass't), G Michael Crooch, George Krull, Flaherty, Dale "yawn" Armstrong, etc. ............ :D
W.T. Anderson is why I went into accounting. Lanny hooded me at graduation. Tom Whetzel was my advisor (still feel bad I didn't have him hood me but Lanny hooked me up financially). I still think about Tom often. He told me once that the administrative assistants and other support staff are who you need to treat with the most respect. That has paid dividends for me.
 
Hit post too soon.

Those other guys you listed were before my time, but I heard stories.
 
From one kindred spirit to another, debits on the left and credits on the right. And while I'm doing my accounting "Oscar" acceptance speech, I'd like to thank W.T. Anderson, Lanny Chasteen (I was his grad ass't), G Michael Crooch, George Krull, Flaherty, Dale "yawn" Armstrong, etc. ............ :D


I've known dale armstrong and his family all my life. One of the nicest men I've ever met.

My mom had him and she made the same remark about him being boring in the classroom. She got a d and said she was glad to get it. He Just attended her retirement party actually.
 
Seems like every textbook I had was authored by an OSU accounting professor. Faculty has always been incredible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Your AGI which you pay income taxes on is net of FICA in so far as the 6.2% contribution of your employer is not included in the W-2 and as such offsets the 6.2% withheld.

To think of SSI as an investment account is misleading, it is a tax, matched by your employer.
My employer contribution to my retirement isn't reported in my income and isn't taxed as part of my AGI. My employer's match of my AGI reducing contribution isn't included in my income either. In regards to my personal retirement account, I pay no upfront tax on what either of us contribute. I'll only be taxed upon distribution of funds in the future.

But, I pay a tax on my income prior to my 6.2% SS contribution. So, if I make $100k, I'm taxed on $100k, not $93.8k, which means I'm paying tax on my Social Security tax. And then I can be taxed on 85% of my annual benefit if I make above a meager threshold, being taxed a second time, unless the tax was limited to taxing my employer's 50% contribution and not a penny of mine that I've already paid a tax on.

So again, what am I missing? I can pay tax on 85% of my benefit of which only 50% came untaxed through my employer. Is this Common Core math?
 
  • Like
Reactions: squeak
My employer contribution to my retirement isn't reported in my income and isn't taxed as part of my AGI. My employer's match of my AGI reducing contribution isn't included in my income either. In regards to my personal retirement account, I pay no upfront tax on what either of us contribute. I'll only be taxed upon distribution of funds in the future.

But, I pay a tax on my income prior to my 6.2% SS contribution. So, if I make $100k, I'm taxed on $100k, not $93.8k, which means I'm paying tax on my Social Security tax. And then I can be taxed on 85% of my annual benefit if I make above a meager threshold, being taxed a second time, unless the tax was limited to taxing my employer's 50% contribution and not a penny of mine that I've already paid a tax on.

So again, what am I missing? I can pay tax on 85% of my benefit of which only 50% came untaxed through my employer. Is this Common Core math?
Net it out... you can do the math despite that OU degree. I have faith in you.
 
convenient to leave out the "in so far as...." but too each their own...
He does pay income tax on what he pays in.

He also may be taxed on what he takes out.

His statement that you said was false was in fact true.

Would have been best for you to admit you were wrong, but to each their own...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cableok
Slight tangent, but I have a friend who spent 8 years in the Navy. He said its basically a welfare/work program and should be considered as such. Your marital status contributes to your salary levels as well as your available housing options.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT