KaskadskyjKozak

I do own a home - never moved out (yet). I considered moving to San Diego the summer before last. At the time, my realtor did not mention the caveats that you describe - he just said I would be taxed at something like 2.5% on the sale price. If what you say is true, then I feel a bit better about it. Although if I move to a less-expensive house it will likely be for reasons financial hardship in which case I will miss those taxed dollars on the price difference (better than the full amount).

Why not have the government provide a software package for people to file with - input raw data, it spits out how much you owe (or get back) and files electronically for you. Quicken and M$ would be pissed, but them As long as we don't have to pay to use the software, and it is easier to use than the forms, I think it is a good idea.

I think there are tax-neutral alternatives for the average taxpayer in line with what I suggest. I fill out forms right now with little affect on what I pay - better to eliminate the forms and have a simpler formula for including the taxable earnings.

For me tax simplication means at least two things: 1) closing loopholes and shelters that are typically taken advantage of by higher income earners. 2) reducing the number of forms typical taxpayers have to fill out. I'm not talking about itemized deductions here, but things like the AMT form - I've had to fill this out 3 years straight even though the result is the same - it didn't apply to me. Ditto for making a little cash on 1099's. I've had to fill out 2-3 schedules for minimal consulting I have done (like < $1000). There should be a way to just add this into wages on the 1040 if you only consult part-time.

This is what I think of the plan:

NICE!

Easier said that done. You missed the point. The increase in "wealth" that causes property taxes to rise is on paper only. It is useless if the costs of "cashing in" offset the "increase" in wealth. Meanwhile actual spending power goes down the shit-hole. I'd take 0% housing growth if it comes with 0% tax increase any day over no net increase in salary, and rising prices/taxes.

I read somewhere that the Icelanders (sic?) are the most happy people on the planet. I'm not sure I remember what the specific criteria were, or how they were weighed, but recall it was interesting. I'm not sure how open they are to foreigners though. I believe they have strict rules about preserving their culture (like naming children with traditional icelandic names).

Fair enough. I get the impression that most people considering this "move" are young and single, or at least single. I'd like to see some discussion of where is a great place to move if you have families. As a single guy, I didn't worry too much about living in a small apartment with roomates, or worry about crime, the quality of schooling, corruption (police, legal system) etc. Once you get a house and a couple of kids, all this changes...

I said that I wanted to grandfather out social security. That would take many years to accomplish. I would receive less than 100% of my benefits under such a plan, and would be transferring money to current (and future) recipients. But there would be an end to the program eventually. Hopefully this could be done such that my contributions would taper off and I could invest in my own retirement concurrently. The question of "dying elderly" that I was addressing was for those people who did not save for SS as the program tapered off and eventually went away. They would be my peers and younger people, who, in 30 or 40 years would have reduced benefits - eventually no benefits (i.e. an 18 year old kid today). The challenge was raised that this was not fair - the government needs to "force" people to be responsible and save for their future, and make sure they do it safely (not on volatile markets). So, we are arguing two things: 1) people who think they are going to get benefits because they paid in to the program. Yes, I think they should get them - proportional to their age as the program winds down 2) people who know that the program is going away and refuse to save for their own retirement, or "lose" their savings in volatile investments My "problem" with SS is that I do not have the freedom to invest (or not) as I wish. I am forced to contribute to some fund, and other people decide what to do with it. The money is mismanaged - and there is constant talk of needing to fix it, before it goes bankrupt. If other people like it, cool. I want to opt out.

You do realize that SS is money you put away for yourself, right? It is not a transfer payment. In other words, you are promised to get back every cent you put into SS plus interest.

Don't put words in my mouth. I support some taxes, but they need to be lower in the aggregate. As for taxing wealth - a lot of good it does me to have my house's value go up, if selling said house, and moving will incur a prohibitive cost, resulting in a net loss (tax on sales price, %-age to real-estate agent, closing costs, etc). Moreover, if the housing market as a whole is on the up, I can't buy anything with the money I have left. The wealth is on paper only. You are taxed on what you earn. You are taxed for sitting on property whose value goes up. If you sell your house you are taxed on the sales price. And there are probably some hidden taxes on top of that through the financing of the new home. Enslavement.

You say it is our moral responsibility to care for our elderly, yet you call for removal of the system that does exactly this thing? How do you reconcile this? I'm not sure why you want to abolish social security, but I suspect it has to do with you not wishing to subsidize others. If this is the case, then where is the moral responibility there? Any statements of "local charities" or "let families care for their own" are just dodges of not wanting to care for what you consider someone else's burden. Where is the moral responsibility there? Those who feel a moral obligation to care for those in need can and should do so. Privately. It is not the government's role. And I reject the notion that throwing money at government social programs is an act of compassion and care. It seems that many people in support of these big government social programs think that by supporting them, they've done their part. And they don't have to make any personal sacrifices to do so - how convenient. And the best part of all - make some one else pay for it ("those selfish/rich/whatever" people). I characterize this attitude as indifference not compassion, and find it hypocritical, especially in light of continuous demagoguery about how conservatives supposedly don't care about the "less fortunate".

School vouchers are not a handout but a reclamation of money confiscated from taxpayers by the government - at least for those of us who have been paying property taxes. And these taxes are raised arbitrarily by the government from year to year according to their whim (property value assessments), irrespective of whether a home owner has more income or not. One more step towards enslavement...

Considering what one's parents sacrifice in raising you, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to return the care, when the time comes. And your children will be watching what you do to grandma and grandpa (and learning...)

This is the status quo in many other nations. It is not begging but merely taking care of your parents. It is simply what is done. It is not begging at all. It used to be the status quo in the US as well (not just before SS existed). In today's America, people are too willing to abandon their parents because it's too "inconvenient" or "expensive" to do otherwise.

I don't want SS privatized, I want it eliminated forever. I am not counting on getting a single red cent from my contributions. If someone "dies" then that is everyone's problem, and moral responsibility to prevent. People need to stop using the government as a surrogate for them. This whole discussion is all just mental masturbation anyway; nothing will be changing for the better anytime soon. Time to have some and forget about it. Hasta!

1. I am talking about grandfathering social security - people over the age of say 60 would get 100% of their benefits, between 50 and 60 say 85%, and so on down to our 20 year olds who get nothing. The program would end, but not starve out those who are counting on it already. 2. Families need to take care of eachother. When an aging parent needs financial assistance, their relatives need to chip in. 3. Some people who do not have family who can (or will) help. It is our moral responsibility to help them - but this is appropriate through private charities, not wasteful government programs.

You've heard of "sticky wages" for employees during a recession? Well government spending is even worse. It never goes down, ever. I still pay like $120 for my car thanks to some #*( transit fee. What happend to the $30 straight fee... And what about the Mariner's stadium? The voters said NO, and the government did it anyway. Funny how we can never fix our #* transit system, but have a couple of $100 million for a sports arena (esp. when the old one was still not even paid for). I'd be happy with cut-backs on the order of 25-30%. I'd also like to grandfather out social security. I'm not a beilever of the pure libertarian utopia.

"seldom supported by facts". What a bunch of BS. Go the DOL if you want some hard proof. No private company would ever survive with that level of shitty customer service and slow turnaround. Ever been on jury duty? Same thing. The INS? Ditto. Government workers punch in at 9, and out at 5. They take their 1 hr lunch and two 15 minute breaks. Fly under the radar, don't get noticed, don't rock any boats, do the minimum. I've SEEN it man.

What I have read in the past is that the total tax rate in Sweden and Norway is something like 80 or 90%, and taxes in the US are 40-50%. This includes income, property, and sales tax, taxes on gasoline, alcohol, and utilities, as well as taxes on corporations that are transferred to the consumer through price increases. Every dollar that is taken from me and spent on my behalf is a reduction of my freedom. Somebody else is deciding how my money will be spent. It is non-negotiable. You said you pay for services anyway that are provided through taxes in countries like Sweden and Norway, but I would argue that it is better to have choice. With choice you might spend less on your retirement for one year, and more the next, or choose higher deductables on insurance, or whatever. With government programs, you have no choices, it is a fixed cost that you shell out and never see again. I also consider that government is wasteful because there is little accountability and auditing. Once government services are funded, it is difficult to cut costs. On the contrary costs rise, and overhead is built in - overhead and waste, that would never cut it long term in the private sector. On the "productivity" side of the equation, if I have to work my ass off to get an extra $10,000 a year salary, and that is taxed at 80% instead of 40%, I will not do it - it's just not worth it. In addition, people who tend to hold government jobs, are pretty secure and do not have to worry about being fired for not being "productive". Agencies are funded, the politicians and bureaucracies fight for funding annually citing some "urgent need" for the funding, but, once obtained it is inevitably wasted. Again, the private sector does not have this luxury - companies need to watch their budgets, evaluate employee performance, and hire/fire as needed.

It's human nature, which is the main reason communism doesn't work. What can I say, we have different experiences and come to different conclusions. About 49% of the time I say the same thing about our war(s) and foreign policy in general - fuck'em, fuck the world - let them solve their own problems. We could better spend the money on ourselves. Close the bases in S. Korea, Japan, and Europe, pull out of every armpit where we have troops stationed (I don't even know half of them anymore - are we still in Haiti and Kosovo?). Cut all foreign aid - people can give through charities if they want. Good luck with your emigration. Peace.

I've talked with people from Scandinavia, and known Americans who lived there as well. I have a basis for my conclusion other than "dogma". If it's so great, move there yourself.

Cool, thanks. Puking is alright, it's getting stopped in my tracks that I want to avoid. I plan to spend the first night at the TH, and spend at least 12 hours at high camp.