Obama in favor of raising social security taxes

[707782]

In America, self employ probably has to pay over 50% for tax when everything included, which is #$#$ suck out the $%#$ sick.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Obama lost my vote. I haven't really researched candidates up to this point but I felt he was the best on early impressions.

I pay such a sick amount in taxes thanks to the SS charge as is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess this would cost me less than an outright, enforceable ban. Still, Obama has not come out for us, so he's off my list.

On the broader questions of taxation, some here say we should negotiate better taxation for gaming income along with any legalization bill. Unfortunately, aside from Ron Paul, the politicians for our position are not likely to give us (or anyone) a tax break (Frank, Wexler, Berkley, Carson, etc.). They are fine folks, but tax cutting really isn't their forte. Perhaps we could get some deal that shifts some of the burden from players to the companies, but even that is hard to see.

This is one more reason to try to make this bipartisan (the other being that we need all the support we can get). Please continue to solicit the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, Obama lost my vote. I haven't really researched candidates up to this point but I felt he was the best on early impressions.

I pay such a sick amount in taxes thanks to the SS charge as is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess this would cost me less than an outright, enforceable ban. Still, Obama has not come out for us, so he's off my list.

On the broader questions of taxation, some here say we should negotiate better taxation for gaming income along with any legalization bill. Unfortunately, aside from Ron Paul, the politicians for our position are not likely to give us (or anyone) a tax break (Frank, Wexler, Berkley, Carson, etc.). They are fine folks, but tax cutting really isn't their forte. Perhaps we could get some deal that shifts some of the burden from players to the companies, but even that is hard to see.

This is one more reason to try to make this bipartisan (the other being that we need all the support we can get). Please continue to solicit the support of Republicans as well as Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm all for bi-partisan support, but I think it is unfair (not to mention untrue) that Democrats won't be helpful to us in terms of taxation. Specifically, the more progressive wing of the Democratic party is strongly in favor of altering the social security tax (IMO for the better) because it is regressive and they feel it penalizes small businesses. So for pros like me who make less than the cap (I think it's 97k) it would be very beneficial to have a progressive Democrat in the White House.

PS I'm not a Democrat.
PPS I don't know where most of the specific Dem. candidates stand on this issue.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm all for bi-partisan support, but I think it is unfair (not to mention untrue) that Democrats won't be helpful to us in terms of taxation. Specifically, the more progressive wing of the Democratic party is strongly in favor of altering the social security tax (IMO for the better) because it is regressive and they feel it penalizes small businesses. So for pros like me who make less than the cap (I think it's 97k) it would be very beneficial to have a progressive Democrat in the White House.

PS I'm not a Democrat.
PPS I don't know where most of the specific Dem. candidates stand on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we'll see what happens. First of all, I didn't say NO Democrat would lower our taxes. Rather, I listed four folks who are with us who aren't known for tax cutting. Democrats have clearly been better for our right to play than Republicans. We need to keep trying for bipartisanship, IMHO.

Also, I don't see how raising the SS tax on others helps you. This doesn't lower your taxes....it merely raises someone else's. I also don't agree that it's regressive; payments are tied to benefits. Perhaps we should try to figure out how to get the government to spend less, rather than having them try to figure out how to best confiscate our money.

[Moneyline]

I've been up all night so this probably won't come out as clear as it should, but I'll try to respond piece by piece.

[ QUOTE ]
listed four folks who are with us who aren't known for tax cutting

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that Frank was for altering the social security tax to make it progressive or flat, although I could be wrong. As far as I know the others haven't stated a position on the matter.

[ QUOTE ]
We need to keep trying for bipartisanship.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree. I'm just saying that your post implies that we should aim for Republican support, in part, because they are better on the issue of social security taxes. My post was meant simply to show that, while we should aim for Republican support, changing the structure of the social security tax is not strictly (and with the exception of Paul it's closer to "not at all")the domain of Republicans.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I don't see how raising the SS tax on others helps you. This doesn't lower your taxes....it merely raises someone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the social security tax is made flat and the cap is eliminated, they can lower the % taxed and still take in the same amount of money. So for anyone making less than the cap they would pay less. This is what progressive Dems. mean when they talk about changing the social security tax.

[ QUOTE ]
I also don't agree that it's regressive; payments are tied to benefits

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that I strongly disagree with and fwiw is something I've never heard a non-libertarian profess, but we should probably save this argument for a better time and place.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we should try to figure out how to get the government to spend less, rather than having them try to figure out how to best confiscate our money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps we should keep the focus entirely on poker issues and away from politically charged issues like how the government should spend money. The issue of social security taxes is borderline b/c of how it effects poker pros more than others, but it's probably best if we (and I include myself here) keep this sort of discussion to a minimum. And when we do discuss it using loaded words like "confiscate" instead of "tax" won't help build consensus.

I probably am coming across more harshly than I mean too here. I appreciate the work that you and everyone has done around here. Let's keep the focus on poker and get this [censored] legal! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Skallagrim]

I am self-employed; I know all about the horrors of the self employment tax. I do not (usually) make near 97K a year, however, so Obama's plan affects me not at all and seems to insure some future viability for the whole SocSec program.

If it were even possible politically to talk about some new system other than SocSec (go to the politics forum) then I might open up. Since that aint gonna happen, having the rich(er) pay more is the tried and true alternative for me. I still like Obama (he plays poker you know).

Skallagrim

[FatalError]

how bout we just accept the fact that social security is dying a slow death and slowly phase it out, it's not like the american people aren't used to constant letdown anyways

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been up all night so this probably won't come out as clear as it should, but I'll try to respond piece by piece....

[/ QUOTE ]

You wrote it very well. Thanks for the reply. I should start by saying all the stuff I do for poker advocacy is poker only, and I'd never change my Obama rating based on a non-poker issue like this. Again, to me, a total, enforced ban is the same as a 100% tax...Obama's is lower than that.

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that Frank was for altering the social security tax to make it progressive or flat, although I could be wrong. As far as I know the others haven't stated a position on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he lowered the SS tax for lower earners, that would indeed be a tax cut for some. I've not heard of such a proposal. All I've heard is keeping the current rate but removing the cap. If someone did seriously propose something that makes it progressive, that would be a completely different discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
If the social security tax is made flat and the cap is eliminated, they can lower the % taxed and still take in the same amount of money. So for anyone making less than the cap they would pay less. This is what progressive Dems. mean when they talk about changing the social security tax.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to check that out further. They've been talking about keeping it solvent by collecting more money, not by redistributing the tax burden.

This is an interesting topic, but I think it's too far removed from poker legislation to matter to our cause.

[ QUOTE ]
I probably am coming across more harshly than I mean too here. I appreciate the work that you and everyone has done around here. Let's keep the focus on poker and get this [censored] legal!

[/ QUOTE ]

You came across fine. Thanks for the compliment! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Adebisi]

So, Obama wants to raise social security taxes, Hillary wants to force people to buy insurance, Thompson wants to pander the religious right, McCain wants to ban gambling and get the federal government more involved in professional sports, and Guiliani wants to expand the power of law enforcement.

Why can't there be a viable candidate that doesn't support something that will make my life more difficult?

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


Why can't there be a viable candidate that doesn't support something that will make my life more difficult?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there hasn't been a politician in over 100 years that understood you could actually get votes without promising to take something from someone to pay for their pandering pet projects.

Heck even the tax cut republicans were told they were taking from the treasury.

Smaller government means less freebies and there aren't enought of us willing to get our own share to make a difference anymore.

IMPO!


D$D