I wish I could pay my fair share; not 43.6%.

Mytwocents - How are you getting to that 48% number? If you're in the AMT you're presumably over the social security cap, so I can't see anything higher than about 40%. Or are you building in the effect of the AMT exemption phaseout as well?

In any case, I do agree that the AMT is symbolic of how messed up our tax system is. I agree that it should be a lot simpler, with fewer deductions/credits, and presumably somewhat lower rates as a result.

Raising the social security cap doesn't just affect workers. It raises costs on businesses employing those workers.

Liberals all think like there is some magical pot of money they can just take from to give to others, and never seem to think about the actual work involved in creating the money that they want to take.

Jordyn-
48%= 1.45% medicare + 3.6848% (NYC tax) + 7.85% (NYS) + 35% (federal) = 47.948%.

The 35% is composed of two elements. The 28% AMT rate plus (.25)*28% to account for the phaseout of the AMT exemption. As you may be aware, your AMT exemption is phased out 25 cents on the dollar once you pass a certain threshold (112,500 for individual filers).

What's your plan to balance the budget LICC? ALl you do is spew talking points without solutions. What spending are you going to cut? You've come cut agaisnt cutting defense, so already you are in the red.

How I Paid Only 1% of My Income in Federal Income Tax

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schoenberg/how-i-paid-1-of-my-income_b_852948.html

Mytwocents - Fair enough. You're in basically the pessimal situation, since you're simultaneously paying the 28% AMT rate *and* in the phaseout. The AMT exemption phaseout in particular strikes me as really dumb--it makes the supposedly "simple" tax rate unnecessarily complicated (and regressive at times) and requires annual tweaking by Congress.

(By the way, people constantly claim that they're paying >50% in taxes; you're proof that that's not really possible since you're in essentially the worst marginal situation you can be in and even your marginal rate isn't >50%.)

puke, candy, rant. puke, candy, rant.

ding, ding, ding.

can we please get a bs barometer that can be attached to posters? just askin.

Again, this guy goes on and on about how unfair it is. Is it against the law to not claim deductions? Why not fight the good fight AND not claim the deductions if he thinks it is so unfair for him to be taxed so little?

You're right rangersfan. socialist is incredibly juvenile and childlike. I want what I want NOW. You're responsible for me and i need my benefits Now.

I have stated how to fix the budget. Several times. But it involves individual responsibility, freedom, limited government that does not centrally plan the economy, elimination of irresponsible government borrowing and spending, equal opportunity not equal outcome, taking care of those unable to take care of themselves, and no begging for handouts.

Wowie, LICcomm ... that's your ENTIRE collection of bumper stickers in one brief post! Very impressive!!!

"I have stated how to fix the budget."

No you didn't. All you gave us was talking points. "Individual responsibility" and "limited governmnet" are not policy. They are Heritage Foundation/ CATO Inst. talking points.

I read the HuffPo link
He says, "Given the choice, of course I prefer to give money to my own causes rather than the federal government."

And it is truly amazing, even the most liberals want to starve the government and use the money on their own causes.

"can we please get a bs barometer that can be attached to posters? just askin."

This from someone who has, as far as I can tell, never made anything other than not particularly creative ad hominem attacks.

i believe its my civic duty to call shenanigans to the blatantly ignorant or slanted comments on this board. consider it a public service. ding, ding, ding.

Thanks rangers. The blatantly ignorant comments aren't always obvious.

"i believe its my civic duty to call shenanigans to the blatantly ignorant or slanted comments on this board"

Hey, if only your attempt to call shenanigans even rose to the level of radio talk show bluster, you might be fulfilling your role admirably. Instead, you've resorted to middle school level ad hominem without even the slightest attempt to engage the substance of the discussion. I disagree pretty strongly with LICC, but at least he's making an argument. You're just standing in the corner ranting like a lunatic.

Here's a generally reasonable set of proposals for getting the budget under control:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/time-for-the-radical-centrists-to-step-up/?hp

The Medicare bit doesn't end up quite going anywhere in particular, but the general analysis seems about right.

jordyn, that seemed very broad brush, and as you said, it had nothing re: Medicare.

If you don't like Ryan's plan, what do you think of the Bowles-Simpson plan?

hmmmm, actually i feel pretty calm. i beg to differ, i have engaged in substance previously on these boards when appropriate. when someone who seems as far gone or as misinformed such as yourself, it just isnt worth my time. i will however ring the "get a clue" bell if you continue to post glass house bs. jason said he has me on ignore - feel free to do the same. i feel a ding, ding, ding ringing in the air.....

rangersfan : Hey, instead of just asserting that someone is misinformed, why don't you try to point to an examples of me or others being incorrect *along with some data or argument that would prove your point*? That seems to be what's missing from your "bs detector". If jordyn says "the world is flat" and rangersfan says "you are dumb", no one observing this conversation would have any reason to believe rangersfan over jordyn, or vice versa; unless an observer already knew the world is round, at the end of the "discussion" they'd still not be much closer to reality.

LICComment: In general, I think the Bowles-Simpson plan is vastly better than the Ryan plan. There's a lot of good ideas in it. In general, I'd probably settle on a balance with a somewhat stronger safety net and infrastructure spending, and somewhat higher taxes, but starting with the Bowles-Simpson plan we'd at least be having the same conversation. Looking at Medicare in particular, I'm personally fairly persuaded that there's unlikely to be a good solution to getting health care spending under control that doesn't involve significant government intervention. I do think that health care is a fairly unique part of the economy in this respect--most of the economy would function reasonably well without nearly as much of a government role.

http://manhattanda.org/press-release/da-vance-106-defendants-including-80-nypd-and-fdny-retirees-indicted-social-security-d