Poll of the Day > should People 65 and up be taxed

(+) Yeah! (+)

I say no because at that stage of life, most people in their mid-60s onward have paid their fair of taxes over the course of their lives and as a result of that, they should be extended a senior exemption on taxes across the board.
---

so they get the social security that i pay for but will never get a chance to enjoy AND they get to pay no taxes?

that is the dumbest idea i ever heard homie.
---

Nall posted...

Yes they should.

---

Yes. If we give exemptions to them based on their age, why not give tax exemptions to those whove enlisted and served? Active duty firefighters, paramedics, and law enforcement? Politicians?

Its a hell of a slippery slope.

WastelandCowboy posted...

Yes. If we give exemptions to them based on their age, why not give tax exemptions to those whove enlisted and served? Active duty firefighters, paramedics, and law enforcement? Politicians?

Its a hell of a slippery slope.

A lof of those people already make tons of money once they stop working
---

Yep and so should churches
---

Turn them into a nutrient paste for the super soldier cloning vats.


---

Yes, they should still pay relevant taxes. There are people in their late 60s and early 70s who pull in pretty good incomes, not to mention that some of the richest men are 70+. Warren Buffet is 88. Can you imagine Warren Buffett paying no taxes simply because he's "paid his fair of taxes over the course of his life"? Keep in mind that he's already notorious for finding ways to pay less on taxes.

RoboXgp89 posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

Yes. If we give exemptions to them based on their age, why not give tax exemptions to those whove enlisted and served? Active duty firefighters, paramedics, and law enforcement? Politicians?

Its a hell of a slippery slope.

A lof of those people already make tons of money once they stop working

...and a lot of people 65+ are still working and making far more.

Mead posted...

Yep and so should churches

Taxing non-profits is stupid.
---

Taily_Po posted...

Mead posted...

Yep and so should churches

Taxing non-profits is stupid.

It is, but there are definitely some churches that are lucrative enough for their higher-ups that calling them "non-profits" is a bit questionable. As an organization, the Catholic Church has a significantly greater net worth than most corporations, to say nothing of all the fast food mega-churches that do very well for themselves. Most individual churches will qualify for non-profit status, but I don't think anything more than recognizing that is needed as far as tax exemptions go. Specifically naming churches as being exempt from taxes when such rules already exist for non-profits in general is silly and at odds with the concept of separating church and state.
---

Yes we can let the middle and lower class contribute more of their fair share to accommodate it.

Yeah, a functional society has taxes. They're still living in it.
---

adjl posted...

Taily_Po posted...

Mead posted...

Yep and so should churches

Taxing non-profits is stupid.

It is, but there are definitely some churches that are lucrative enough for their higher-ups that calling them "non-profits" is a bit questionable. As an organization, the Catholic Church has a significantly greater net worth than most corporations, to say nothing of all the fast food mega-churches that do very well for themselves. Most individual churches will qualify for non-profit status, but I don't think anything more than recognizing that is needed as far as tax exemptions go. Specifically naming churches as being exempt from taxes when such rules already exist for non-profits in general is silly and at odds with the concept of separating church and state.

Non-profit status isn't and shouldn't be determined by net worth. If you looked at money being brought in, you'd have to tax the ACLU, SPLC (which could qualify as a partisan organization anyway), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United Way, etc.

dedbus posted...

Yes we can let the middle and lower class contribute more of their fair share to accommodate it.

Did you mean to say "no"?
---

Meanwhile there are non-profit CEOs getting 9 figure salaries

Nice system ya got there Zeus
---

Mead posted...

Meanwhile there are non-profit CEOs getting 9 figure salaries

Nice system ya got there Zeus

Nice examples ya posted there Mead
---

Taily_Po posted...

adjl posted...

Taily_Po posted...

Mead posted...

Yep and so should churches

Taxing non-profits is stupid.

It is, but there are definitely some churches that are lucrative enough for their higher-ups that calling them "non-profits" is a bit questionable. As an organization, the Catholic Church has a significantly greater net worth than most corporations, to say nothing of all the fast food mega-churches that do very well for themselves. Most individual churches will qualify for non-profit status, but I don't think anything more than recognizing that is needed as far as tax exemptions go. Specifically naming churches as being exempt from taxes when such rules already exist for non-profits in general is silly and at odds with the concept of separating church and state.

Non-profit status isn't and shouldn't be determined by net worth. If you looked at money being brought in, you'd have to tax the ACLU, SPLC (which could qualify as a partisan organization anyway), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, United Way, etc.

dedbus posted...

Yes we can let the middle and lower class contribute more of their fair share to accommodate it.

Did you mean to say "no"?

No. We exempt 65 and older. Tax the poor more. Then tax 65 and older anyway. Give actual exemptions to the rich.

My mistake theyre only taking home paltry 7 figure incomes

https://smartycents.com/articles/nonprofit-ceo-salaries/
---

Maybe, in exchange for their medicare and social security benefits.
---

Taily_Po posted...

Non-profit status isn't and shouldn't be determined by net worth.

The only way for a corporation to amass a large net worth is for it to make more than it spends. That's a profit. Obviously, it gets a bit more nuanced than that in that amassing some assets is needed to fund more expensive charitable causes and have enough in the bank for potential emergencies, but the bottom line is that a positive bottom line is a profit. If an organization has more money than it can reasonably be expected to spend in carrying out its mandate, calling it a non-profit is a stretch. If an organization is run by people who have become millionaires by running it, then calling it a non-profit is just ridiculous.
---

Too many loopholes even if this needed to be a thing, and it doesn't.

If you didn't tax those over 65, just have them "earn" all the money for a family, and then have them give it to relatives. Basically they run the buisiness and get all the profits, so nobody pays taxes.

But I would be ok with doubling the base exemption (giving the married exemption to anyone over 65) to ensure that they don't pay taxes or very little on social security etc.

It's currently 12k a year, which isn't enough to live on, or at least not very well. Doubling it to 24k, would cover most seniors social security (I'm only going to be getting about 1k a month).

You can live on 24k pretty well.

Many other countries have higher base tax rates, but a higher exemption amount (or tax only 20% for income under 40k etc). This makes far more sense to me. Our tax system kinda blows for anyone just trying to get by/living paycheck to paycheck.

Add in the zooming costs to rent/own a home, and things are going to be REALLY hard for people who can't work anymore, pretty soon.

You should be exempt pretty much from fed taxes if your making less then X+400$ a month, where X in the average cost of a 1 bedroom apartment in your area. This only applies if you are actually renting a place (so you need to have proof of that to send in with your taxes), and it is capped at the average cost per zip code.

So if you live in zip code 95020 for instance, the government determines the average 1 bedroom apartment rental cost, which turns out to be $1568 a month. You got lucky and got a place for only $1200 a month. Therefore, your new exception per year would be $1600*12 which is $19,600 (instead of the normal base $12,000).

This would ensure every american had the ability to work and live in any community. It offsets the huge cost of living, and ensures almost any job will pay a living wage.

Much more effective then just raising minimum wage (which still needs to be done in many places as well), the above will help, but won't solve the problem of someone living in an area with an $8 min wage, and $1000 a month rental costs (because they were already pretty much exempt from taxes anyway..and struggling.

Need to ensure every american has the ability to make about $2000 a month minimum at this point, and then implement the X+400 option I mentioned and.....everyone should be able to live fairly comfortably. Meanwhile you wouldn't really reduce over all taxes you collect by much at all.
---

They should be axed. If I get to 65 you can send me.
---

KeijiMaedaTiger posted...

They should be axed. If I get to 65 you can send me.

Fish and plankton from the sea!!!
---

It should be the other way around, start off with nothing and slowly build up the taxes with age

Why tax more on 20 somethings working dead end jobs while going to school? Once they start getting good jobs you start taxing them
---

Mead posted...

My mistake theyre only taking home paltry 7 figure incomes

https://smartycents.com/articles/nonprofit-ceo-salaries/

Well, that proposal to limit the salaries of non-profit CEOs certainly seems sensible, even if it would make it harder to find top candidates. In other cases, the CEOs aren't even bringing much value.

adjl posted...

Taily_Po posted...

Non-profit status isn't and shouldn't be determined by net worth.

The only way for a corporation to amass a large net worth is for it to make more than it spends. That's a profit. Obviously, it gets a bit more nuanced than that in that amassing some assets is needed to fund more expensive charitable causes and have enough in the bank for potential emergencies, but the bottom line is that a positive bottom line is a profit. If an organization has more money than it can reasonably be expected to spend in carrying out its mandate, calling it a non-profit is a stretch. If an organization is run by people who have become millionaires by running it, then calling it a non-profit is just ridiculous.

You're missing the most important part of for-profit enterprises, which is where that profit goes. For-profits with a large net worth return that profit to shareholders, that's not the case with non-profits. The fact that a charity or other non-profit comes into more money than it can reasonably spend at the moment doesn't mean that the money is going to shareholders and therefore shouldn't be stolen by the government. Keep in mind that ALS Association had a MASSIVE windfall with the ice bucket challenge. Just because they now have far more money than they know how to spend doesn't mean that they should forced to turn that money over to the government rather than finding ways to put it to work as intended. People didn't donate to ALS research so the government could take the money.

That's not to say that other elements of your complaint don't have some validity. Compensation *should* have reasonable limits (and why you'd bring that up in relation to the church is a little baffling, considering that -- afaik -- they're not among those offenders). However, the broader idea of people "becoming millionaires" by running it is deeply flawed since it's not unreasonable for wealth to build up over time; if somebody is making $80k leading an organization -- which most people don't consider an *unreasonable* amount -- they could potentially become a millionaire if they work there enough years while controlling their costs, putting money aside, etc.

wolfy42 posted...

You can live on 24k pretty well.

24k isn't even enough to live a modest lifestyle in many areas.
---

Ya know zeus you really dont have to argue so damn much

Other people are gonna have different views than you
---

Nobody should be as much as they are. But I'm in Canada so of course I feel this way. We've (both Canada and the US) paid enough in taxes that the interest accrued alone would fund whatever needed funding.
---

Mead posted...

Ya know zeus you really dont have to argue so damn much

Other people are gonna have different views than you

There are some subjects where, "Well, we're all entitled to our individual opinions!" makes absolute sense, like when choosing favorite flavors of ice cream or vacation spots. This is hardly an ice cream subject.
---

Taily_Po posted...

24k isn't even enough to live a modest lifestyle in many areas.

You can live just fine on 24k (after taxes) pretty much anywhere in the US. By modest, I mean you have a roof over your heard (without having to share with others), good food to eat, money for transportation and entertainment. I'm not including any kind of medical coverage etc that is true, but it's a whole different issue.
---

wolfy42 posted...

Taily_Po posted...

24k isn't even enough to live a modest lifestyle in many areas.

You can live just fine on 24k (after taxes) pretty much anywhere in the US. By modest, I mean you have a roof over your heard (without having to share with others), good food to eat, money for transportation and entertainment. I'm not including any kind of medical coverage etc that is true, but it's a whole different issue.

You'd have to share with others in many places, which stops being a "pretty good" lifestyle. And if you're talking about relying on public transit (which, depending on the area's COL and added car ownership expenses, might also be a necessity), that's once again more of a modest-at-best lifestyle rather than a pretty good one.
---

Noop_Noop posted...

so they get the social security that i pay for but will never get a chance to enjoy AND they get to pay no taxes?

that is the dumbest idea i ever heard homie.

Everybody who works pays into SS so it's not just you but keep in mind when SS first started in the 1930s, most of the people who were the first recipients had never paid into the SS fund so it was in the red from the start.
---

Even the dead should be taxed. It's about time they pulled their weight.
---

Nope. Its hard enough to afford medical care for some on a fixed income.
---