• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oh look, republicans are talking capping contributions to 401k's

Jack Hays said:
It was an accurate narrative, and worth posting because there was some chance that bill might pass. This idea, this time, was DOA and not worth discussion.
Click to expand...

hey look, you have yet another reason why you were obediently whining at a proposal from President Obama that didn't hurt the middle class but not the republican proposal that did hurt the middle class. what is that, youur fourth reason? the good news for you is we don't even have to discuss how your narrative was a dishonest and tortured mess.
 
Vern said:
hey look, you have yet another reason why you were obediently whining at a proposal from President Obama that didn't hurt the middle class but not the republican proposal that did hurt the middle class. what is that, youur fourth reason? the good news for you is we don't even have to discuss how your narrative was a dishonest and tortured mess.
Click to expand...

As always, it's been a pleasure.
 
KevinKohler said:
Define rich? My company matches up to 10% annual salary in 401k. Is someone making 100,000 a year rich?
Click to expand...

That is a hell of a match. Anyone at your company would be a fool not to contribute at least 10% of their earnings to their 401k (at least until they hit yearly legal max) Hardly any company gives you that much anymore. My company matches to 5%. A lot of companies only do a 50% match of 5%.
 
Lerxst said:
Republicans will smile and go along in lock step without truly understanding what it is this could mean.

When you redistribute wealth to the poor it's called socialism.
When you redistribute wealth the wealthy, it's called capitalism.
White Jesus says so.
Click to expand...

And when you redistribute it to the middle-class it is nationalist populism.

Well that was illuminating.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That is a hell of a match. Anyone at your company would be a fool not to contribute at least 10% of their earnings to their 401k (at least until they hit yearly legal max) Hardly any company gives you that much anymore. My company matches to 5%. A lot of companies only do a 50% match of 5%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's how they justify below competitive wages. The healthcare is solid, as well.
 
Vern said:
yea, republicans are talking about capping the amount you can contribute to your retirement account to 2400 a year. Just like Reagan, they want the middle class to fund their tax cuts for the wealthy. ...

Once again republicans show their true colors. Will conservatives once again obediently defend it?
Click to expand...

Oh yawn. Is there some law of partisanship that requires insane and ignorant loyalty to one of the two American parties? I am continually amazed at how the two party culture pulls the puppet strings of faux differences, and get it's members to become worked up over idiotic and fake memes - especially vexing in that the two party system does not represent serious manichean ideological divides.

Here are nuggets of truth for those who are tired of breathing their own party's nether region gas:

1. The concept of neutrality is the canonical goal of efficient taxation. As such, taxes should not be used to distort otherwise economic decisions. The greater the distortion, the greater the economic losses to the economy (in both consumer preference but also in investment and profits).

2. Non-neutralities also encourage people and businesses to make socially wasteful choices in their activities to avoid their tax liability.

3. Home ownership mortgage interest deduction, charity contributions, health insurance deductions, education deductions, child and child care deductions, local tax deductions, alternative energy credits and deductions, AND 401K and IRA's etc. all contribute to distorting the market and causing economic inefficiencies and harm.

4. Therefore, the goal is (or should be) to eliminate these inefficiencies and then LOWER tax rates on taxpayers.

The only reason that tax reform is so difficult is because American political culture has evolved into a kleptocracy, a sense of entitlement to a share of the national tax loot. As such, every citizen stands in line with their special pleading in the form of welfare, grants, credits, and deductions. Any political party that threatens to take away home mortgage deduction or child credits or 401K 'special entitlement' (etc.) faces a backlash.

And this backlash ALWAYS occurs because, as polling has shown, EVEN if you lower rates people feel they are getting something special when they get their deduction.

Regardless of how much overall taxation is needed or warranted, I have no problem with government taking away these special pleadings and replacing with simple tax brackets. It is not only far more efficient, it is also far more fair.
 
maxparrish said:
Oh yawn. Is there some law of partisanship that requires insane and ignorant loyalty to one of the two American parties? I am continually amazed at how the two party culture pulls the puppet strings of faux differences, and get it's members to become worked up over idiotic and fake memes - especially vexing in that the two party system does not represent serious manichean ideological divides.

Here are nuggets of truth for those who are tired of breathing their own party's nether region gas:

1. The concept of neutrality is the canonical goal of efficient taxation. As such, taxes should not be used to distort otherwise economic decisions. The greater the distortion, the greater the economic losses to the economy (in both consumer preference but also in investment and profits).

2. Non-neutralities also encourage people and businesses to make socially wasteful choices in their activities to avoid their tax liability.

3. Home ownership mortgage interest deduction, charity contributions, health insurance deductions, education deductions, child and child care deductions, local tax deductions, alternative energy credits and deductions, AND 401K and IRA's etc. all contribute to distorting the market and causing economic inefficiencies and harm.

4. Therefore, the goal is (or should be) to eliminate these inefficiencies and then LOWER tax rates on taxpayers.

The only reason that tax reform is so difficult is because American political culture has evolved into a kleptocracy, a sense of entitlement to a share of the national tax loot. As such, every citizen stands in line with their special pleading in the form of welfare, grants, credits, and deductions. Any political party that threatens to take away home mortgage deduction or child credits or 401K 'special entitlement' (etc.) faces a backlash.

And this backlash ALWAYS occurs because, as polling has shown, EVEN if you lower rates people feel they are getting something special when they get their deduction.

Regardless of how much overall taxation is needed or warranted, I have no problem with government taking away these special pleadings and replacing with simple tax brackets. It is not only far more efficient, it is also far more fair.
Click to expand...

This all completely ignores the science of Behavioral Economics. While I agree that there are economic distortions in the tax code that lead to inefficiencies, this being especially true with our overly complex corporate tax code, there are also reasons to use the tax code to promote certain types of behaviors.

For example, the current tax code creates incentives for investing generously in your 401k or IRA. We create these incentives because we have an economic incentive in this country for individuals to fund as much of their own personal retirement as possible. Behavioral economics shows that when you allow people to defer their earnings, pre-tax into a retirement investment account, they will invest more for their retirement then they otherwise would have.

We all benefit economically from having a more educated workforce, thus there are tax incentives for higher education. We all benefit from having younger people entering the workforce, thus we have incentives for having children and so on. People are often not very rational, and thus need a nudge sometimes.
 
maxparrish said:
Oh yawn. Is there some law of partisanship that requires insane and ignorant loyalty to one of the two American parties? I am continually amazed at how the two party culture pulls the puppet strings of faux differences, and get it's members to become worked up over idiotic and fake memes - especially vexing in that the two party system does not represent serious manichean ideological divides........
Click to expand...
max, here's a crazy idea. Instead of posting your irrelevant and ideological driven points, why not respond to my post. I know it sounds crazy but this is a debate forum. There is no " insane and ignorant loyalty to one of the two American parties " in my criticism of republicans wanting to limit how much Americans can contribute tax free to their retirement accounts. There is something "insane and ignorant loyalty to one of the two American parties" to want to cut the average American's incentive to save for their retirement just to cut rich people's taxes. And guess what, there is some "insane and ignorant loyalty to one of the two American parties" to criticize President Obama's proposal and not this one.

anyhoo, if you're too afraid to post something relevant or intelligent in this thread, you can always go back to this thread

Vern said:
Max, where'd you go? did you cut and run because you realized what you were posting was fiction?
Click to expand...

You remember, it's where you because of your "insane and ignorant loyalty to one of the two American parties" you flailed at the fact that republicans were flaming lying hypocrites on deficits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom